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 This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current. Comments that remain for a long time are intended merely as reminders for things I need to work on someday. Those looking for my talk page archives are invited to refer to the history of this page.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi

Just dropping in to tell you that I'm fairly new here ,I think the inclusion of links to unverified videos can make the videos seem encyclopedic (to users redirected from WP). Why don't you apply for a sysop you seem qualified enough (with 27,000 edits)?:D have a great day --Notedgrant (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Pie.jpeg

Notedgrant (talk) has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

FYI

I quoted you in a comment I made at a thread at RSN. Cirt (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Blackout Ripper, again

Hey. That guy who keeps changing serial to spree is back. Mind keeping an eye on the page? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Lemme ask you something. Based on the edits, do you think there's a WP:SOCK case to be made against Bigone2 (talk · contribs), Albsol88t (talk · contribs) and Howto8008 (talk · contribs)? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Pretty obviously the same guy. I think it's a WP:DUCK situation that can probably bypass normal sockpuppet identification methods. I'm alerting the admin who indef blocked the original account. DreamGuy (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Kay, this is getting more and more ridiculous. I opened a thread on WP:ANI. I don't think this edit helps them all that much, either. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Repressed memory

Hi DG,

I've undone your revert to repressed memory. I think the page is certainly problematic, but I don't think JAR is POV-pushing and I certainly don't think the page is adequate. I'd rather work towards a better version that's reflecting the majority and minority opinion than play whack-the-revert-button with various editors. I've continued to read on the topic and repressed memories are certainly debateable, but we need to reflect the debate even if it means noting the spurious pseudoscience that most of the recovered-memory crowd cites. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Jack-A-Roe may not be intentionally pushing a POV (though he certainly may be -- he has a long history of questionable edits), but the edits in question certainly have that end result. He said something was a RS, we both say it's not, without other input the end result should be that the content should be removed. And we do not need to reflect spurious pseudoscience, per our WP:FRINGE standards. DreamGuy (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you weigh in on the talk page, I've started a section. I've always found JAR to be reasonable even if I disagree, and since I don't see this as an issue of reliability (my points are about undue weight) there's a good chance of convincing him or at least starting a discussion. Also, your revert undid my edits to the research section, so I replaced them. Just an FYI, I figured you weren't trying to undo that as well. My replacement didn't change any of the edits where you undid my undo of JAR's undo of my doing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

RSN thread

Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#60_Minutes_and_the_Assassination_of_Werner_Erhard? Cirt (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what needs another look there. Are you asking me to reassess my opinion based upon later comments, or were you hoping for clarification of some of my general statements as they apply to the specific examples? DreamGuy (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think it's okay as there has been further input and extended comments from others that helps clarify things. Thanks though. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Smiley face murder theory talk page

I must apologize for the name calling over your input on the smile face murder theory.--Botdance (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, I have blocked this user indefinitely as his entire reason for editing Wikipedia seemed to be to harass you. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I suspect that account was probably a sock of some other user, but as long as the main account isn't doing similar behavior they would now know they can't get away with it that way. DreamGuy (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I just came here to ask if you had any idea whose obvious stinky sock that was, but I will leave it up to you if you feel like filing a WP:SPI or not. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Zodiac killer

Hi, I haven't been editing or looking at main space for awhile. I just looked at this article and the mess it's in. Take a peek http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zodiac_Killer&diff=316208200&oldid=316205193 It now has dead links, tags through out, boy I'm shocked at how fast this occurred. I'm still having problems with RL so I wanted to bring this to the attention of someone I knew who actively edited the article and saw your name. I will try to help when I can but I will not be too useful until I get healthier. Thanks, if not interested I totally understand. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know much about that case, I'm afraid. Seems to be one of the few big ones I never read anything on. The dead link labeled in that edit is fine, though, as it's a ref to a newspaper article, and the news article still existed and can be used as a source even if the online version was taken down or moved. DreamGuy (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'll see how much I can do myself. I can ask others in the wiki serial group to help too if needed. Thanks again, hope all is well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com

On my talk page, you wrote:

Just FYI, Examiner.com is not a reliable source, so should not be added as a reference to articles. It was discussed over on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard quite extensively in the past. DreamGuy (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I confess I am not shocked. This is the 2nd time I have seen articles there that seemed to be reworked (mildly) WP articles...and thus my note at the edit. Thanks.- Sinneed 21:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary

Without commenting on the specifics of this particular case, if you ever find yourself writing edit summaries or comments in caps, it is time to take a break and regain your equilibrium. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

ps, saw this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:DreamGuy. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday up to his old tricks again, I see. DreamGuy (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Tossing cookies

Windowasher has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have a disagreement with or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--Windowasher (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Impersonation

An IP address signed as your name here and I figured you'd want to know about it. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not sure what they are up to there. I don't know if it was someone who just disliked that guy and copied my sig from earlier on the page or if it's someone consciously trying to get me in trouble (which I've had in the past, but you'd think they'd eventually give up). I'm not around enough to worry about it much, though. DreamGuy (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Montague Druitt

Hi Dreamguy, I recall that you used to edit articles related to Jack the Ripper. If you have time, would you mind taking a look at Montague Druitt? I'd be interested to know whether you feel it's comprehensive. Looking around on Google, I can see a lot of details that aren't in the article, but it could be that they're not reliable. The reason I'm asking is that it's up for featured article status; see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Montague Druitt/archive1. But if you don't have time to look, no worries. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Rampage killers"

Thought you might be interested in knowing the spree killer IP has created a new category and is using it to combine mass murderers and spree killers. See here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That's kind of an unfair accusation. I'm the IP user in question and if you took the time to notice, I cleaned up the American spree killer category, taking off numerous mass murderers like Ronald DeFeo Jr. and the Columbine gunmen. I added the rampage killer category just so there could be a place where both would be classified. I quit adding non-spree killings, but Wildhartlivie didn't. He insisted that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were spree killers and when as far as getting me banned for a 31-hour period whenever I removed them from that category. Now he's here just to cover his own ass. I swear to you I'm not on a crusade. Truth be told, I don't care if the category is deleted or not. I just made it so people could classify mass murderers and spree killers of a similar nature under the same category. No need to do any kind of clean-up. I already took care of that, although I had some trouble because Wildhartlivie kept re-adding serial killers like Thomas Dillon and mass murders like the Jonesboro/Columbine gunmen and Biswanth Halder. It seems kind of questionable HE out of all people would be here denouncing the page, but like I said he's probably just here to cover his own ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PostalDude96 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, just a note to say thank you for looking at that Ripper-related featured-article candidate the other week. I was out of my depth with it, so your input was really helpful. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ghosts in European folklore

Please consider undoing your massive reversion on Ghost, which wiped out a lot of well-sourced content describing non-western cultures. My guess is you did not notice that all the content on European terminology folklore had been preserved, just put into a more specialist article and summarized in the main article. I am always very cautious about removing content, and in this case have not dropped anything. I am much bolder about adding content. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it. If you want to make a massive change to a controversial article, YOU need to get consensus first, not the other way around. I reverted it because the changes made the article worse, so I'm not about to unrevert it just because you ask. The stuff you removed from the article needs to stay, the stuff you added needs to go. If you disagree, get consensus first. DreamGuy (talk)

Copyright issue.

Hello DG.

I have a question concerning copyright and I value your knowledge on the subject.

What is the copyright status of works that are considered "illegal" (e.g. obscene)

For instance: Say during the 1950's someone published a comic book that with the implemention of the comics code became illegal to republish--would the owner of the copyright still have been allowed to renew the copyright?

Also, in the case of pulp novels, if the publisher renewed the copyright for the novel, would the copyright for the original cover have had to be renewed at the same time? I'm talking about the period during which the copyright had to be physically renewed by the original copyright holder or a legal heir.

Thanks in advance. Revmagpie (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Opinion request

Would you please weigh in at the Examples discussion at Talk:Fringe theory? thank you. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Succubus page

You deleted the images on the Succubus page because? Please see the discussion page there. Thank you. USchick (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it was not a succubus and claimed it was. Per my edit comment. If you'd bothered to read it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi

How are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.122.12 (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Same ol', same ol'. See below. DreamGuy (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Controversy

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-12/Bigfoot for a discussion over bias in Bigfoot and Cryptozoology.--Gniniv (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

We've already had the discussion: You aren't allowed to add your bias to those articles. Asking for mediation won't change that. Please see WP:FRINGE and WP:VALID for the information you should have already learned previously. These rules must be followed. DreamGuy (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi, DreamGuy, how's it going? I've commented on ANI. Bishonen | talk 13:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC).

...and have the entire membership of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization signed up for Wikipedia accounts? - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement analysis

Thanks for working on statement analysis. I was the one who originally created the talk page and likened statement analysis to voodoo and criticized that it seemed like a paraphrase of McClish's web site. I don't have a dog in this race and am neither for nor against statement analysis. However, I think the article was in pretty good shape as the result of a bunch of edits various users made from the time I started the talk page and I think you and another user have taken too much out of the article. Over a period of years, those editors added a lot of sourcing and examples and deleted most of the promotional material McClish or one of his boosters added to the article. I agree that more sourcing for the reliability of statement analysis is necessary and that the article should have more anti-statement analysis sources. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Any tool that is widely used in law enforcement and can allow trained investigators to ACCURATELY spot WITHIN SECONDS (for example) that the Jon-Benet ransom note was fraudulent or that Susan Smith knew her kids were dead must have some merit to it. My main concern is that all of the cases presented on both McClish's web site and Sapir's web site show that people are guilty. If statement analysis is only used to gather incriminating evidence and never exculpatory evidence then that is a problem with it. I also question whether that source added recently -- Skeptics -- is a reliable one. There must be something critical written about statement analysis and CBCA in the scientific literature that would be more worthy.18.171.0.233 (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Answered at article Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Carla Laemmle

This is a question about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carla_Laemmle&action=history I see you deleted the citation to the source information at www.file770.com Could I ask in what respect that was not an acceptable citation? MikeGlyer (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned in the edit comment, it does not meet the criteria of WP:RS policy for reliable sources. It's just some blog with no history of expertise or reliability. If that page can be used as a source, then any page on the Internet by anyone could be, and that's not how an encyclopedia works. DreamGuy (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as you kept the information that came from the blog yet discarded the source my curiosity was piqued, because I didn't think that was how an encyclopedia works. Thanks for your prompt answer. MikeGlyer (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That can go either way. The information in question didn't seem particularly controversial so I figured it was OK on its own while another source gets located. DreamGuy (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you consider looking for a better source? No, you did not. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So you're a mind reader now? And, who are you anyway? That's a pretty random and useless comment. DreamGuy (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Find a Grave

OK, I found it archived here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_18#Find_A_Grave) in a discussion from 2007. There is a lack of consensus expressed on how people feel about the site, ranging from "horrible" and "useless" to "useful" and "valuable". The recommendation ELs "should not normally be used in the body of an article" is a good one and the Mae West article already conforms to that. Given the lack of consensus, I suggest following the "When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide" recommendation at the WP:EL page rather than simply deleting the link. Doremo (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Did you even look at that link? It only had one single person saying they thought it was an OK link, while everyone else said it clearly did not belong and ought to be mass-removed from every article it was listed on. If that's your support for "lack of consensus" that's nonsense! DreamGuy (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Plot summaries

DreamGuy, I recall seeing you make comments about plot summaries needing to be more concise than actually practiced. I've gradually warmed up to this idea, and you may be able to state the idea of tightening the word count better than me. At WikiProject Film's talk page, there is a discussion about plot summaries in film articles with different ideas about how long a plot summary should be. If you have time, it would be great if you could make a comment. The discussion can be found here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 16:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of kenken link

You deleted my link at kenken to a site which lists other kenken sites and its close variants, on the grounds that such a link does not comply with WP:EL rules. You did not have the common courtesy to inform me as to which of these rules this harmless and useful link disobeys. Kenken is played by hundreds of thousands of people. A site which leads them to lists where they can learn more of the finer points of the strategy of the game (points which cannot for reasons of economy be dealt with in the WP article itself) appears to me to be a useful one, and one that would be appreciated by many fans of this game. It looks like commonsense to me. The article on Sudoku has just such a link. I suppose you will now go there and delete that one too. Both of these links provide EDUCATIONAL material to people who have gone beyond what is available in newspapers and in the (very basic) WP Kenken article.

Britannica has, at the end of many of its articles, copious references to books, journals and so on, which can be sought out and referred to. This is no different. There is no one there touting for money, and no porn, and it is all above board. I just cannot understand how someone who has an official role in WP, 99% of which is crammed with articles on subjects which no one but the smallest handful of people would be interested in, can sever interesting and useful aspects of an article on a subject which is of GREAT interest to a word-wide audience.

There are countless links to Youtube in WP, which I might remind you is a COMMERCIAL site. I am replacing the link which I made earlier, and I trust that if you remove it again, you will have the common courtesy to inform me as to how such a link could possibly lower the standing of WP in any way at all, and how it contravenes the garrulous WP:EL rules. If you continue to remove it, I will ask for senior mediation. Myles325a (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You have not answered my query above, and with the new link, which is not commercial, you have deleted it as well. Once again, you have not even bothered to say what is wrong with it. It is ONLY a list of sites which also feature kenken puzzles and it includes variants and educational material on these mathematical games. I ASKED you to clarify the problem, and you just keep deleting a useful and harmless link to a site that many readers would find valuable. What IS the matter with you? Why don't you tell me what rule I am supposed to have broken? Myles325a (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Between the behavior above and the fact that another person has agreed the link should be removed, the rules you have broken are WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS, beyond just the putting up a link that violates WP:EL rules for being encyclopedic in tone. I also suspect you may have a WP:COI about this site. DreamGuy (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

OP myles325a back live. For someone who has, I am presuming, some sort of official role in WP, your English in the above is disgraceful. I make the following points:

1. This is the fourth time I have asked you to detail what WP:EL rule I have broken in linking the Kenken article to a site which merely provides other such sites, and near variants, and includes further educational material on this mathematical puzzle. You keep deleting the link, and you still have not afforded me the common courtesy of explaining how that link contravenes the WP:EL rules.

2. Re: WP: CIVIL If I have been in contravention of the WP:CIVIL rule, then so have you. A civil person would not just delete links that are plainly not vandalistic, without some explanation. I think that you are high-handed, and a WP bully. Moreover, the issue of “civility” is separate to the matter of whether the link is appropriate or not. Even if HAD been uncivil in the discourse associated with this business, that does not, ipso facto, invalidate my contributions to this article. Who the hell do you think you are? You think I’ve been impolite to you, so you think it is quite in order to slash my contributions. You have hardly been civil to me.

3. Re: WP: CONSENSUS. There are only TWO editors who keep deleting this link. And you keep doing it serially. Your idea of consensus could use an overhaul via a dictionary. There are many editors in WP: two means nothing. On top of that, I am very much of the view that both of you are in cahoots in this business.

4. WP: COI. I feel insulted by this baseless allegation. I have an interest in Kenken, and I have some correspondence with some other people who also do. There is no commercial or ideological angle in this, and nothing for anyone to gain. I think that you are way out of line to suggest it. I have nothing to gain from this matter, except in satisfaction of helping to design a good article and assist those who have an interest in this subject.

I have said before that WP is full of articles along the line of some side-street in High Wycombe which would be of interest to half a dozen people. The Kenken page involves a puzzle that appears in newspapers across the world and is played by hundreds of thousands of people. It is extensively used by teachers as the user needs to learn about primes and factors to play the game. The puzzle can be simple, or possess a complexity that would tax the most talented of mathematical minds. It is not a trivial computer nerd pastime, but a genuinely intelligent and challenging game, requiring both logical and mathematical skill.

Wikipedia, unlike other encyclopedias, does not publish the number of hits, but I would bet they would put the Kenken article in the top 10%. The Kenken page cannot begin to deal with the finer points of the game, or the variants which have sprung up, and the devotees of such a game would always be looking for more EDUCATIONAL material on these. The link provides nothing more than a series of sites which would allow the aficionado of the game to find sites where they could learn more about the game. What on Earth is wrong with that, and how could it possibly be non-encyclopedic?

I am re-inserting the link, and putting the contents of my comments here on the talk page of the Kenken article, the talk page of your compatriot Bongomatic, as well as taking it up with the Administrators. Myles325a (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This user opened a thread at ANI where you are mentioned.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

These days any ANI thread complaining about me is archived before I even see it. Probably for the best. Thanks for the heads up, though. DreamGuy (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Find a Grave

Just a passing comment but the debate about Find a Grave continues to rage. I am not going to change it again because quite frankly I don't care much about that article but I wanted to make you aware that not all editors agree with that statement that its not a good External link. --Kumioko (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am fully aware of its status. See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. The people who want to use it are in a very clear minority, and some of them seem to have no purpose on Wikipedia other than adding links to that site for linkfarming purposes. DreamGuy (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure about this?

Here, you remove a neutrally-worded statement from the lede of an article, with a source, and you replace it with a non-neutral statement with a cite needed tag, using a highly uncivil edit summary. Are you sure this is what you wanted to do? --John (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My edit was consistent with the consensus of the editors on the talk page and what WP:LEAD has to say about how article leads should be written. Your edit removing that text was both unsupported and resulted in adding more bias to an already overwhelmingly biased article, which is why it was reverted by another editor before me. Your comment above is both inaccurate (there was no citation needed tag in my edit -- and indeed I explained in my comment why one was unnecessary -- and there is nothing uncivil in pointing out that the earlier edit had the end result of slanting the article) and has the appearance of being a mere threat instead of any attempt to resolve anything under Wikipedia's standards of conduct. DreamGuy (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My mistake about the cite needed tag, it was another editor who restored this after you removed the neutral and referenced wording and replaced it with the unsourced tabloidese. Other than that I stand by what I said; you have shown contempt and/or misunderstanding of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:LEAD and WP:CIVIL in what you have done. This conversation is now at an end unless or until your further misconduct necessitates a visit to a centralized venue to examine your conduct. You have made it impossible for me to assume good faith on your part, which is sad. You'll find insulting other editors will often have this effect on your relations with them. Have a good day, and please think about what I said. --John (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:KETTLE, and if you seriously believe what you claim above and are not just tossing out an alphabet of links to lend a misplaced semblance of authority then you need to seriously brush up on what WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:LEAD *actually* say. I would remind you that User:JimboWales himself has agreed that the article suffers from major POV problems in trying to minimize the coverage of the controversy, and your edits directly oppose what he says needs to be done there. I think you're the one who needs to take a step back here. DreamGuy (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Describing someone's comments as rants does not comply with the blp policy. Please can you express yourself without resorting to such insults. Blp is just as important on talkpages as on the article itself.87.114.22.229 (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I originally deleted the above post by an IP editor as bizarre and pointless but decided to answer to figure out if there's any real content behind it that can be cleared up. "Rant" is pretty widespread and innocuous term, and I cannot understand any possible interpretation of WP:BLP that would consider the use of that off the cuff remark on an article talk page as a violation. I also think it's a stretch to call it an insult. It was a description of the type of statements the individual in question was making to point out that those statements did not seem notable enough to be included in the article, and I know of no alternate term that would describe it as accurately. If you get that easily offended I think you'll have a difficult time participating in any conversation here, but, hey, best of luck to you. DreamGuy (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

if you cannot see that calling the father of a murdered persons comments about that murder "rants" is problematic then I don't think you should edit any blps. It is simply your opinion that they are rants. If you think they are not notable then simply say that. You need to be more careful about your "off the cuff remarks". A rant is a clearly derogatory term especially in this context.87.114.22.229 (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I already had said they were not notable, some people had claimed they were, so I had to explain why they weren't notable. Your personal opinions on what articles I (or anyone else) should or should not edit means nothing to anyone, so please don't bother going that route. DreamGuy (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Zorro

Why do you keep deleting the audio drama history for Zorro? The information is 100% historically accurate. Instead of deleting it perhaps you could lend some assistance in making it align with whatever wikipedia's standards are since it appears you disagree with the content or arrangement. At the very least help me understand what it is that I'm not doing correctly. My apologies for my persistence but I'm not a wikipedia expert and probably never will be. But I would like to be able to post the accurate information regarding the history of Zorro in the world of audio drama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmacadon (talk • contribs) 12:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As was already posted to your talk page, the primary problem is one of conflict of interest, as it appears your edits to this project seem to be solely for the purpose of placing what amounts to advertisements for a specific modern radio drama that you are all but certain to be involved with in some way. In non-polite terms this is also called spam. DreamGuy (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Strange Days

I was the one who removed your plot tag because there was already one at the top of the page (tagging with Twinkle drops it there instead of the pot section itself). Just wanted to give you a heads up. If you run into something similar in the future, odds are someone else has done likewise. You and I are the only ones who have edited the page in the last few days so you should be able to see my edit with summary in the page history. Millahnna (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Was just going through a bunch of articles making quick edits. Spotted the one at the top later. I think it makes more sense in the plot section but don't care enough to change whichever version you want to keep there. DreamGuy (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine either way, as well. I agree I think it makes more sense in the plot section and usually manually drop them in. When I'm in a hurry though I do it with twinkle. How you handled it today is fine by me - I only removed to begin with so that there weren't duplicate tags. I've seen those not get cleaned up sometimes when I'm going through the Articles with Plot Summary backlog. I just wanted to let you know what happened so that if it happens to you again in the future you'll have an idea what the reason might be. Millahnna (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the heads up. DreamGuy (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher Article

Hello Dreamguy. R U still looking at this page? Can you stop by and take a look at it again? Nothing much has changed. Probably it is not a good thing that Wiki hosts the most biased and prejudicial article about the case that exists on the web next to the 2 hate sites PMF and TJMK(perugiamurderfile.org and truejustice.org). Both of these sites are as tolerant as adding information about the case as Wiki editors are/have been in that they do not tolerate it. If you have the time please review the section titled "The Upstairs Flat Diagram". It is quite remarkable. One would think this situation was as intolerable to Wiki as it is to others trying to edit the article to ensure at least 'some' measure of fairness that both sides of the "controversy" (as you know it has been disputed by editors there that the trial itself is "controversial") are represented. There is an appeal going on in Italy and every day the article remains in it's present biased state untold damage is done. Some people curious about the case will read it and form an opinion based on it. Sad and wrong but more than likely true. Please, if you have the chance, take a look at the section above. Other sections reveal the same level of obfuscation of facts now being practiced with the apparent tacit approval of Wiki. This can't be right.Fancourt (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been busy, but I'll keep trying. There is a huge POV-pushing problem on that article and it needs to be fixed. Unfortunately there is a dedicated group of people there who clearly only want the side they support to be covered. I know that Jimbo Wales weighed in there before, and I hope he can get additional experienced editors to take a look there too. DreamGuy (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

DreamGuy, could you try and avoid slightly uncivil edit summaries such as the one you used to restore the image, it only incites more dispute and that doesn't help anything. Also; while the image was probably removed incorrectly (or, rather, I think it got disputed and the final stalemate was that it was removed) valid discussion does exist on the talk page, you're only risking another edit war by restoring the image prior to finishing that discussion. It doesn't really matter because I doubt anyone will remove it for the moment, but it was still a somewhat thoughtless step to take :) --Errant ^(chat!) 17:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of the discussion on that talk page. That's why I, with considered actions and not at all thoughtlessly, restored it. I did not risk an edit war by putting it back, the editors who removed it without support or justification are the ones who would be blamed for any possible edit war. I tried to follow WP:BRD originally, but the people who removed it instead tried to argue for BDR instead. One small but vocal group can't just be expected to make any edits they want without consensus and then run complaining when someone undoes them. DreamGuy (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I think the discussion (once pointy editors are given due weight) is quite clear in supporting some sort of image, just not that one. There isn't much rush. If you get chance to try improving the image that would rock; as I just commented I don't have the time today - but might be able to fix it up tomorrow. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

So is it my understanding that the image was removed once again? I do not see it in the article. BruceFisher (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it either. I have been looking for 20 minutes now. Is it gone again? This is incredible that this is still on going. I just do not understand people going to this length over a diagram to give a visual aspect. Nobody knows the exact anythings in regards to the locations of things or objects within it as none of us have been there. It is a visual aid is all. ( Maybe Im having a heck of a Blonde Moment I don't know) --Truth Mom (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Errant- Dreamguy's summary was not at all uncivil. It did not "incite more dispute" then already exists/existed and considering the consensus to restore the image it was hardly a "thoughtless step to take". The image in it's original form was actually fine for the purpose it was expected to fill. That there is still argument about it being reinstated at all is indicative of much deeper problems then just the quality of the image and that much should be very, very obvious. The point is, however, moot: the image has been removed again by someone wiser than those in attendance here (or so it would seem).Fancourt (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

For those who didn't see the image and asked about it above, two of the editors who have most consistently pushed POV on the article and opposed all even minor improvements removed the image. It has been restored, but no doubt these editors will not stop ignoring policies to try to get away with whatever they want. At some point here we will have to go down a real dispute resolution process, as its clear they won't stop and that their behavior is not going to improve. That means everyone should be on their best behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Have a cookie

Truth Mom has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you kindly for all you do.

Take a break and have a snack :)--Truth Mom (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Dream

Hey man I'm just randomly picking out a long time editor to double check something. I recently was working on the "improve biographies" and randomly came to the page James D. Squier. After going through the article and trying to find better references I came to conclusion that in actuality this was a "non" article. By that I mean I see no reason for this person to be notable and thus the article has no reason to exist here. I commented on the talk page. Why I'm here is just to get another opinion on both my conclusion on my comment on the talk page. If you can send me a quick line cool. If not that's fine too. Either way no biggie. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Lon Williams

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar! Thanks for the reference, now I have another book to track down!

And as one fan to another, a message board post by Mr. Williams' granddaughter indicated that there were two unpublished Deputy Marshal Winters stories in her possession. Here's hoping someone someday publishes an omnibus volume and includes them!--Roland (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC).

Cryptic comment at AN/I

Care to explain what you meant here? Some evidence always goes down well if you are going to comment on other editors' supposed motivations. Can you provide such? Or was this just your opinion? --John (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, come on. You have been previously warned about your editing behavior, so claiming ignorance of what is being discussed is pretty silly. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I get it, it's just your opinion and you have no evidence. Talking about other editors' supposed motivations without being able to provide any evidence reflects badly upon you, and will make others think less of you as an editor. So be it. --John (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you clearly do not get it. It's not that I am not "able to provide any evidence", you simply ignore all such evidence when presented to you. You have been repeatedly warned about bullying editors, uncivil comments and other inappropriate behavior. The fact that all of these actions have consistently been aimed at editors who have made statements or edits to try to either remove or counteract the bias you and others entered into the Murder of Meredith Kercher article -- an article Jimbo Wales himself has said violates BLP and NPOV due to the actions of editors with a POV-based agenda -- would be all the evidence needed. Some editors may not be editing well while trying to combat that bias, but with newbies that's to be expected. You have been here many years and should know already that your behavior is unacceptable and therefore have no excuse. DreamGuy (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That's quite hilarious. Thanks for making me smile. Any time you reconnect to reality, or have anything substantiated to say, I look forward to hearing it. Until then, take care of yourself. --John (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Concerning that last comment, please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. And, hey, it was Jimbo himself who pointed out the POV problems and so forth on that article. I suppose you want to tell him to "reconnect to reality" too? Good luck with that. DreamGuy (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Note to self

Remember to finish removing links to *.aveleyman.com DreamGuy (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Still need to do this. DreamGuy (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Vitamin C

I noticed you removed all references in regards to the birthdate of pop singer Vitamin C (artist). One of the refs you deleted, AllMusic, is considered a reliable source. Caden ^cool 09:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for fixing the article. DreamGuy (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Cmt

I mentioned your cmt here. QuackGuru (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned your latest cmt here. I think you articulated the situation better than I could. QuackGuru (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Random survey about verifiability, not truth

Hi, This is a random survey regarding the first sentence on the Wikipedia policy page Verifiability.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

In your own words, what does this mean? Thank you. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, personally it's (with "you" being someone we direct to the first sentence and not necessarily you you):

"If there's an idea that the best of reliable sources say is true that you do not think is true, tough. Your personal opinion doesn't trump the experts. If you believe strongly enough about it then go become an expert, get published by reliable sources, and change the world's perceptions. Then and only then will we change the Wikipedia article. Until that time we have no idea of whether you're just some crank who only thinks he knows what the truth is. (Well, no, actually we already do have a really good idea that you are a crank who wouldn't know truth if it snuck up and split your skull with a lamp, but it's rude to come out and say that, and Wikipedia as a whole usually feels it is better to be nice than honest, so we'll pretend you might be a future world expert instead of telling you to just go away like we probably ought to.)"

"Truth" for a lot of people seems to just be a code word for "want I want to believe despite all evidence to the contrary". They had to come up with that phrase to take away the argument that "truth" trumps everything else. I strongly support it's inclusion there for that reason and will be one of many to fight tooth and nail to prevent anyone from removing it. DreamGuy (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Tritype page

Hello DreamGuy! I just wanted to engage you in the discussion that William M. Connolley and I are having on my talk page regarding the Tritype page redirects, per his suggestion. Since you are both doing moderating on the page, I thought it might be helpful to see what your thoughts are on the matter.

Just to preface the latest edits, last night I added several new secondary sources to show notability/validity regarding the subject matter. I would greatly appreciate it if you would take a look at those, and let me know what you think? If I need to make any more changes to the page according to your suggestions, I would much rather do so than see the page redirected again.

Thank you in advance for your time and assistance, and I look forward to hearing from you in our discussion!!

Raa18123 (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes - Change was not Vandalism

14:08, 15 September 2011 DreamGuy (talk | contribs) m (99,745 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 173.11.40.209 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Llorracsemaj. (TW))

I am really confused. I added what I thought was a helpful link to Sherlock Holmes.

It is to the University of South Florida LIT2GO program (http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/author/d/doyle.html) which contains many professionally produced audio books with that are downloadable for free. USF is an accredited Florida state public university. NO ads, not "odd amateur groups; long dead site that was largely marketing; new site selling Strand scans"

It would helpfully to verify the information that you are deleting before deleting it and labeling it as vandalism.

I understand that you would like to protect the site from vandalism, all I am asking is to verify it first.

Thanks -- Llorracsemaj (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take this to your talk page to be sure you see it. The edit comment you posted says an edit after yours was reverted so that the article was returned to the state it was in immediately after you edited it. The vandalism mentioned was an edit where someone changed mention of a "Christmas Annual" to "Christmas Anal".

I then made another edit and removed a bunch of links I thought added nothing to the encyclopedia. Your edit looked like spam, because when you click it as it appeared on the page it went to http://www.http.com//etc.usf.edu/lit2go/author/d/doyle.html instead of just http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/author/d/doyle.html - that first link goes to a site that captures page views of mistyped addresses and shows advertising.

Clicking the correct link shows it is indeed a good site hosted by a university. I will go and add it to the article. DreamGuy (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for re adding the link for LIT2GO. I am sorry if I misunderstand your correction. Your change reads better than mine.

Thanks Llorracsemaj (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

External Links Warning

Hello, I'm a proponent of a separate wiki that I use quite frequently for work. My work entails following the International organization, ICANN, which controls the Internet's DNS system. A wiki, icannwiki.com, exists that documents the organization and those that follow it very well. I have added a number of external links to Wikipedia.org to pages that were not represented in the same way as they are in the ICANN centric wiki. I understand this could've appeared as spam, and that perhaps the most beneficial thing to do would be add necessary information to the wikipedia.org page; unfortunately, I do not have the time for this and settle for an external link to help direct those ICANN-ers that may be looking for some industry related information to the another helpful site. Please advise. Thanks, Sasquatch505 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC).

Ceffyl Dŵr

Hi, I have declined your Prod. I think that we should keep a mention of the subject somewhere. One option might be a merge to Kelpie. TerriersFan (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Without reliable sources showing notability, even a mention in Kelpie isn't justified. Mention in a single book (and two unreliable website based upon that same book) doesn't cut it in the slightest. DreamGuy (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Incident: An "Undo" Vendetta?. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Spammer complains that his spam was removed and goes on long tirade about an "an aberrant with a group of cronies" and so forth. Same old nonsense, different month. DreamGuy (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with your reversion in this particular case, the rationale in the summary is inaccurate

The late writer who posted as "Gharlane of Eddore" was not "some random person on usenet"; he was a respected critic in the field. He is missed by a lot of oldtimers who remember when Usenet was the vibrant front edge of evolving fanac. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well, being remembered by random oldtimers does not make someone notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Claddagh ring

Just a note of thanks for your vigilance at the article. Some extremely good work has been done there - it's generally improving with time. I see you've caught out a few badly done items. Djathinkimacowboy 20:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Manticore

I think your edits were right (especially about the Pictish image) but in my opinion you should have moved the deleted sentences to the discussion page.--Carnby (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

MOS discussion that may be of interest

Because of your previous input on various iterations of the debate about the lower-casing vs. capitalization of the common names of animals (domestic cat, blue whale vs. Domestic Cat, Blue Whale), you may be interested in this thread proposing key points that should be addressed by the guidelines: WT:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 16:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Kris Herzog

The negative entry about Herzog and 99% of the negative comments about him in every News story about Herzog, is by a stalker that has been stalking Kris Herzog for years, he is filing a civil case against her and his Attorney has already started to look for her, to have her served with a Restraining Order and Civil papers, one of her alleged witnesses will not stand up for her and have already stated she misquoted him, the other has been named in the civil suit and will be served papers soon.

Court Records Indicate: This female stalker uses many names and has already been arrested for stalking Herzog and other celebrities in the past, she was committed to the Arizona State Mental hospital twice for stalking.

It is a classic case of e-media or social media stalkers or "haters", people that will never be you, so they attack you for no reason.

I did a check with the BBB of America, in 44 years NO current or former client has ever sued or even filed a complaint against Mr Herzog or his company.

If you read her complaint carefully she offers NO eye witness testimony about anything she alleges, NONE PERIOD.

SHE HAS never MET or spoken to Mr Herzog in any way, shape or form, except to email his company weekly, begging and pleading for an interview of him or any of his Celebrity clients.

Her alleged witnesses have NEVER met Mr Herzog or witnessed anything they have alleged.

If we are to go by the FACTS and ONLY the FACTS here they are:

His 43 year old company The Bodyguard Group.

Herzog's web site CLEARLY states that they are NOT a security guard company, but ONLY a private referral group of elite military members.

These same people that attack him here on Wikipedia have made dozens of complaints against Mr Herzog and 100% of them have found to be UNFOUNDED and they were ALL dismissed.

Herzog's criminal record, from altercations with the aggressive criminal Paparazzi.

Herzog had stated in public interviews and fully admits to having thousands of violent altercations for the aggressive criminal Paparazzi.

Out of these thousands of violent, 100% work related altercations, Herzog has be charged in 3 cases, one 21 years ago, on 12 years ago and one 5 years ago. ALL 3 were verbal ONLY altercations, NO injuries, NO serious violence has ever been alleged. (pushing shoving excluded)

To have only 3 cases, all misdemeanors but 1, out of thousands of work related altercations aggressive criminal Paparazzi, gives Mr Herzog a record of staying out of trouble 99% of the time.

My father is a District (State's Prosecuting) Attorney, he pulled ALL of Mr Herzog's Police reports and court records.

As for concerns about Herzog being violent or dangerous, My Father, after speaking to the Officers involved with Herzog said this: "Herzog is not made for Hollywood, he to far to direct, upfront and honest and that makes enemies fast in the world he works in, he using the images of himself with celebrities to get jobs for U.S. Veterans for FREE, that pisses off the normal security companies that do not do it for free."

Herzog's criminal record, from altercations with the aggressive criminal Paparazzi.:

Of ALL of Mr Herzog's courts cases, ALL have been dismissed, PERIOD. (1 after a plea deal, to stay out of trouble for 3 years, which he has and that was dismissed as well).

If ANY of the so called PI or companies had the impressive Celebrity photos like Herzog does, they would also use them to get jobs, just not free of charge for U.S. Veterans, like Herzog and his father before him, has been doing since 1967.

His attackers do not have a web site like Herzog, with thousands of celebrity photos, so they are jealous of his success.

Members of The Secret Service and Herman Cain's staff had been on Herzog's web site for several days BEFORE Herzog was hired by the Herman Cain campaign, what does that tell you. Maybe they know more about the REAL Kris Herzog than any of us.

Has Herzog been in trouble, yes he has, but I think we all deserve a 2nd chance and ALL reports were Herzog did an outstanding job protecting Herman Cain, evidenced by the photos of Herzog with Herman Cain, taken AFTER the TMZ story broke and Herzog was headed home.

If Herzog is so bad, why is it that after thousands of stories have been run about him, NOT one ex girlfriend, NOT on ex Employee, NOT one ex Client has ever said anything negative about him ?

If he is so bad, why don't ALL the celebrities demand to be taken off of his web site ?

Maybe Herzog is just a human as any of us, not perfect, made mistakes, but even his worst critics have NEVER offered any proof that he is not what he says he is, a U.S. Veteran Helping his fellow Veterans with FREE of charge job placement.

Again, please note;

If we are to go by the FACTS and ONLY the FACTS here they are: She or Her alleged witnesses have NEVER met Mr Herzog or witnessed anything they have alleged.

Every negative comment about Herzog is 100% from what they have read about him in the tabloids.

Amanda, NYC Student — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aad351 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm not pro- or anti-Herzog. I just think he isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article, which is why I voted for the article to be deleted. Claims about stalkers and whatnot don't mean anything to me. DreamGuy (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Kris Herzog

Kris Herzog does in fact own the copyright to "My True Hollywood Story" You can search the U.S. Copyright office online for "My True Hollywood Story" and Kris Herzog is listed as the owner and author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aad351 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

DID

Though you're probably aware of it, DID is still quite active. I've posted a lot of comments and a couple sources that need to be integrated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Funny how the article is always quiet for a while and then suddenly some self-declared expert and some cheerleader new accounts always show up at the same time to try to push their own POV onto it and censor reliably sourced information they don't want people to know about. Multiple personality disorder indeed. DreamGuy (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If this is not appropriate to post here please remove it. I am learning. Please try to differentiate between people and possibly good and bad faith contributions. This is an emotional topic and not many with dissociative disorders are able to deal with the fact that some people think it's likely fake and always will. This is not my view, and I am open about that, but I am certainly not a cheerleader account and do agree there should be info on the controversies surrounding the topic in the article, because it does exist. We are not all the same. I personally am not as attached to the name and history of my diagnosis and don't feel an attack on it is an attack on myself. But I do have criticisms of the article which I will discuss as I have been. Again please move/delete if this is not appropriate, thanks. Forgottenfaces (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU and I have both seen editors with clear bad faith edits that article in the past. One person got permanently banned for doing so, and for creating fake cheerleader accounts to pretend to have more support than he really had. I do not doubt that there are other people acting in good faith as well. But of course good faith alone is not enough to dramatically change an article that has been controversial for years and has been hammered into its current version through the dedicated effort of many other editors acting in good faith. If you have concrete, specific suggestions, by all means make them. I see WLU has already made some changes to the longstanding version based upon other people's input, and I can guarantee I will support anything that actively improves the article and is more accurate. But there are at least two accounts editing that page who are so dramatically biased that they lose all site of what it means to be honest with themselves about what is actually accurate. Strongly believing something to be true doesn't mean you get to censor the experts who have published reliable sources that express conclusions that disagree with you. All the posturing, screaming, vague threats, edit warring and so forth will not make those critics go away. Someone who has the desire, for example, to remove all mention of the controversy from the lead both does not understand how WIkipedia works and does not appreciate that just because you disagree with someone it doesn't make their views insignificant. Similarly, repeatedly yammering about one of the most famous cases in the history of the diagnosis allegedly being mere pop culture and therefore not something the article can cover does not make the claim true. Even if we were to remove all mention of the most recent book on that topic, that case has been described as highly flawed *for years* by *many* other reliable sources. Remove one as objectionable in some way and we can just add four more. Personally disagreeing with them is one thing, trying to not let anyone else read about them is quite another. DreamGuy (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't let this go.

FF, iatrogenesis doesn't mean "faking", it means "produced by therapy". Part of the value of having iatrogenesis noted as part of the page is to address misconceptions like that. Because something is possibly amenable to the influence of a therapist doesn't mean it's not real, just like the placebo effect doesn't mean people are weak-willed or it's purely psychogenic.

Also, people might be surprised to learn that DG and I almost certainly differ about this topic. DG, I believe, gives every indication of thinking that DID is purely iatrogenic. I on the other hand, believe there is a significant amount of information and literature on the trauma-theory of DID, as well as a significant minority who believe DID is produced at least in some people through inappropriate therapy. I think both should be included on the page. However, that is a sourcing and policy issue, and the real problem on talk:DID right now appears to be editors who think editor rather than scholarly opinion is what determines page content - and that is flatly wrong. The fact that one or more editors may have or treat DID gives their opinion no more weight than any other editors - all are expected to demonstrate how the scholarly literature verifies the text and ideas. In other words, competence is required, not opinion; Wikipedia is not therapy for either patient or therapist; and finally both practitioners and patients should leave their experience at the door. Everyone can contribute provided we all accept the ground rules found in the policies and guidelines.

And DG still scares the bejesus out of me, even as I agree with much he says. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I should have been clearer on the iatrogenesis topic. I do know it doesn't mean fake and should not have written it how I did on this page. I apologize. I will discuss specific issues individually on their own merit on the talk page. I hope the conflicting over policy can stop and we can get some real things done. And I have no love for Sybil, I actually really despise the way the media characterizes DID and find it very insulting. If such fantastic things weren't published about this mental illness than the controversy wouldn't be as black and white as it is. But that is another topic. I'm being open about my biases here so as to further the discussion and get it away from what it is. Thanks again Forgottenfaces (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Meh, it's not on a mainspace page so it's not a huge deal and I'm not offended. It's issues like the nuances like iatrogenesis' true meaning that need to be documented, explored, expanded and discussed on DID, and we only do that by including them in the page with as much detail as we can wring out of the sources. Sybil's involvement in popularizing DID can never be ignored, but Nathan's recent disarticulation of the theory (along with Rieber's earlier historical work) should go a long way towards indicating that Wilbur and Schreiber didn't simply write a disinterested summary of a novel phenomena. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think my opinions on the topic of iatrogenic causes of DID are a bit more complicated and nuanced than WLU would believe, but my own opinions are not really the issue. Some experts are published reliable sources unequivocally expressing the opinion that the whole thing is nothing more than make believe in a sort of mass delusion by therapist and patient. Others believe it is something real but that most cases (and the ones with the most alters) were made worse by the treatment and not better. Some believe that there's an underlying cause that expresses itself in certain way based upon cultural expectations. Others believe is is based upon trauma as a child, or brain damage, or epilepsy, or even demonic possession (OK, that last one isn't a modern one). But somebody coming along pretending to be an expert can't just wipe out all other opinions on the article. You can't attack Elizabeth Loftus and company (not that she's mainly focused on this topic, but she's a convenient example who has her own article) hoping to make them to disappear completely and expect to be taken seriously. I am not trying to make *my* opinion be what the article says, as it would read entirely differently from what it does now if we did. I am not trying to get *my* version there, I am trying to get the version that fairly represents the diversity of opinion on the topic. And just because someone comes in expressing an extreme view one way doesn't mean we should compromise to some middle position, because then they would just be more and more extreme and the compromise would get more and more off balance. As it is I think the current version is still slanted a little too far into the "it's 100% real camp", but consensus means nobody is likely to be 100% satisfied. DreamGuy (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You have to admit DG, "complicated" and "nuanced" are not the first adjectives to leap to most editors' minds when your opinions come up. But yeah, no matter what sources > opinions.

WP:CONSENSUS means nobody should be 100% satisfied :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Points read and understood. I have been reading all the policy articles etc. this evening so hopefully I don't do anything too stupid, and I don't plan to make any significant anything without utilizing the talk page first in any case. I am extremely green here, for sure, but I am a fast learner. :) Forgottenfaces (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a complicated place, and not easy when it's a controversial and developed article like DID. Generally noobs who are inexperienced but willing to read and follow the P&G will understand and adapt. The reason I'm so irritated over Tom Cloyd and Tylas is because they apparently refuse to admit the P&G override their own experiences and preferences regarding the topics. Sources are not handwaved away because you don't like them.

I am generally a pretty good editor, though I refuse to back down when I know the P&G back me up. If you have any questions about this or any other topic I would be happy to answer them. Another option to consider would be adoption, which would give you an independent resource to draw upon, and possibly bring in a new editor with a fresh perspective. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment for DG

The page does need a fairly serious top-to-bottom overhaul, there's lots of new sources we could use and integrate. Though conflict like this is messy and wastes a ton of time, at least it usually ends up improving the actual page with a good kick in the ass. Have a look at Talk:Dissociative identity disorder#Sources, any chance you have access to any of them? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I may... I don't have time to do anything too involved right now, though. Day job, yadda yadda. But, yes, improvements are welcome, and I always respect how well you are at cutting through the chatter to get at the good stuff. My discussion above reminded me that there are lots of other sources available for some of the content that is being called insignificant. We can work on improvements, but at least two accounts there look to be acting in a way that will likely have to lead to more serious actions. There have also been a number of red flags we would be foolish to ignore. They may not pan out, but my spider sense is tingling... DreamGuy (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, you know/trust anyone experienced with sticky NPOV issues who might be called in to help keep thing on an even keel and defuse the situation? I trust myself in general but I get too hot headed for my own good sometimes. I know a few people like that in general, but don't know if they'd feel knowledgeable enough (or have the time) to try to tackle this mess. Some of them watch my talk page from time to time, so maybe they'll magically appear. If not I'll have to see if I can find some. DreamGuy (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Doc James has already been contacted [1]. I don't know if he will actually become involved, but if he does then it would be an immense help to the page. He's calm, experienced, an admin, a doctor, and very good at navigating controversial edits. He's in my top five list of people I would ask to help in this situation. Of course, it's easy to ask for a quick opinion, the real difficulty is getting substantive, longer-term engagement. However, he's also very good at handing off sources, if you have a list of sources that aren't in the page and should be (particularly ones that address iatrogenesis), please add them to talk:Dissociative identity disorder#Sources and I'll see about reading and integrating. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

• Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18

• Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?

• News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer

• Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near

• Technology report: ArticleFeedback moves into new trial phase; and how MediaWiki integrates with Facebook, IPv6, and PostgreSQL explored

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Murderabilia

Hi,

Regarding Murderabilia, I believe you're correct about the Authorhouse book mentioned (I confirmed it appears to be self-published), but I disagree about Sleuthsayers. According to WP:RS,

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.

According to their credentials, these are published, professional crime writers (and apparently law enforcement as well), which is, I believe the exception intended above.

What is your opinion? Thanks,

--Unicorn Tapestry ^{say} 04:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DreamGuy. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 15:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rick Santorum

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rick Santorum. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You sent me a message that mentioned NPOV. I want to do things right.

Which article do you mean? Because I edited three or four different pages. 71.22.155.114 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I know you're super busy. Hope this isn't too much trouble.