Jump to content

User talk:DreamGuy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Faustian (talk | contribs) at 21:24, 1 June 2009 (→A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

1RR I've agreed to only make one revert per article every 24 hours, and admins can block for violations.

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 This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current.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. You should know who you are. If you do post, your comments will be removed, most likely unread. If there's any chance that you might not know that your behavior is considered harassment, I will tell you, and from that point on you will not be allowed to post here. To anyone who doesn't know what I 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).

1-RR COMPLIANCE TO DO LIST:

  • Serial killer [1] (large brand new section poorly sourced, with major source being some psych student's paper -- not a reliable soruce)
  • Sudoku [2] somebody listing a nonnotable variant he himself created
  • Vampire (longstanding problems there)

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

AFD question

You seem to have been editing Wikipedia heavily for much longer than I. Do you know of any ways to help make sure an AFD is seen by the broader community so that it cannot be swamped by editors just from the page up for deletion? Thanks- Locke9k (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Cry of Freedom (book)

Just wanted to say good work on the above. I think it is better now than before. KnightLago (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The end of Dan Schlund

I know other editors were giving you a hard time about your so called "aggressive behavior", but there are two sides to every story. Throughout that debate, I felt like the other editors downplayed the contra-opinion unfairly. The correct move was ultimately made, and thanks for helping keep WP advertisement-free. smooth0707 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I have mentioned the recent activity by Azviz over at WP:ANI, if you want to comment over there. MuZemike 18:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graeae Theatre Company

I wouldn't worry too much about the notability tag on the article. It can't be listed on AfD again for a minimum period of time anyway. It does satisfy notability although the text could use some work, and any more references you can link back to the text itself will be of benefit. Leave the tag there; removing it will just make him think he's getting under your skin and encourage him. Having it there will attract other editors who may know a thing or two about the subject and can work on it as well. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Carina Axelsson entry

Hi! Hey, thanks for finally getting those idiotic blogs deleted from there. I think we've got the pretend princess pretty well shaped up. PR (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

poor man's original hash research

Why have you removed virtually all the content of poor man's copyright page? The section called 'modern methods' seemed quite sensible to me. Did you look at (or do you understand) the linked maths-based cryptographic hash pages? Far from being original research - its what people actually do every day! e.g. Inventors write down in a journal a hash and also publish said hash. Galileo published anagrams to the same effect hundreds of years ago. Edit and prune an article perhaps - but what use is slash and burn. 91.109.13.236 (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting outright is the accepted -- and, in fact, necessary -- action when the content in question is completely hopeless per encyclopedic standards. It's just original research/recommendations added as a how to guide. We aren't here to give recommendations, especially not silly technical nonsense that isn't legally sanctioned for a topic on legal matters. DreamGuy (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack the Ripper Suspect - Melville Macnaghten

I don't thank you for deleting my article about Melville Macnaghten in the Jack the Ripper Suspects page. Who the hell are you to say which author or book is notable or not ? Did you even read the book I mentionned ? I wish you had an open mind but you obviously haven't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.68.217.210 (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you to demonstrate that it's a notable theory, not the other way around, and since you are unable to do that it cannot be mentioned there. On top of that, the field of Ripper studies universally considers that particular book to be a total joke. We do not list every single person that everybody with some weird conspiracy theory decides to accuse of being Jack the Ripper, only the most significant ones -- wide media coverage, general level of acceptance in the field, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horneldinkrag

It ain't no stinkin' sock. Not of mine, anyway. My guess would be it's the same guy that was harassing me from an IP a day or two ago, only this time playing kind of a "reverse psychology" game of outrageous kiss-up "support". At least it's funny. The one over the weekend wasn't. I didn't want to pose this theory out loud, but since you brought it up... Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of different plausible explanations, but none of those are that it's a sock of you. Yours might make more sense than the one I was thinking of. DreamGuy (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, there's always a chance that I've got a devoted fan out there somewhere. The downside would be if he turns out to be a stalker. If so, I'm ready for him, in my home in this Florida swamp, surrounded by razor wire and a moat filled with large, grinning reptiles. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Heads up

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP request → our old friend may be back again. MuZemike 05:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warden

Please don't chastise him on an Afd; thanks. I've taken the liberty of removing the off-topic verbiage myself, and hope you are not too annoyed with me for editing one of your posts. If you are, please let me know here, thanks much!!! KillerChihuahua?!? 19:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow people

I'll take a stab at cleaning it up. Any suggestions? - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions? Take some aspirin first. I got a colossal headache even looking at the page. DreamGuy (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
; ) Well, I did some cleanup and trimming to reflect that the sources are mostly late night talk show guests. Hopefully now it looks a little more like an encyclopedia article than a textbook at Hogwarts. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I usually love pop culture sections of various critters, but even this one has me scratching my head - I am concerned much of the pop culture section is OR really, as the article seems to equate Shadow people with shadowy figures ...pass the aspirin. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of Weird NJ

On what do you base that claim? It was discussed once at RS/N and I don't believe any consensus was reached one way or the other. Daniel Case (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis that they are primarily interested in only republishing rumors for entertainment purposes, that they have no expert credentials in anything, promote WP:FRINGE views, and have not gained recognition as trustworthy or authoritative by experts of the fields they write about (folklore, basically). DreamGuy (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Deletionist/Inclusionist War

"A bunch of rabid editors who miht as well be bots that vote "Keep" on every AFD they see". Woah! MichaelQSchmidt does some fantastic work at finding sources and rescuing valid articles, so he's no bot. He definitely edits in good faith and tries to improve Wikipedia, just as you do. I can see Dream Focus on the Sergio D. Acosta AfD as a regular Keep recommender - which can be tiresome - but a problem with one user shouldn't spill over to general acrimony towards all those trying to rescue articles; we're not all inclusionists. There's plenty of routine Delete voters too, so it tends to balance out, and a sensible closing admin can spot the contentless voting. Ah, I see that there was a sockpuppet involved as well, so that probably didn't help your blood pressure. Anyway, I'm just trying to say that you don't need to get so wound up. That AfD might go with deletion, or it might not, but an article about a borderline notable filmmaker isn't going to break anything or bring Wikipedia into disrepute. As it happens, I don't think he's notable enough, so I shall add my tuppenceworth. Fences and windows (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to strongly disagree with the characterization of User:MichaelQSchmidt's edits: He's voted Keep on many cases where there was no reasonable case to be made -- no even charitably giving him the benefit of the doubt -- and his idea of "Cleaning up" seems to be finding any link anywhere mentioning a term that might be related, not caring if it's even talking about the same topic or anything close to being a reliable topic. There have been several cases of this demonstrated just in the last few days, and I remember him from before as well. Frankly I've not seen routine Delete voters voting Delete without good reason, whereas there are clearly several editors who routinely deprod every prod they see and vote Keep on every AFD they run across. But of course we as editors do not have to agree on everything and can agree to disagree, so I respect your opinion despite the disagreement. DreamGuy (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that he was actively encouraging User:Varbas to misrepresent the results a sockpuppet report, which is clearly bad, bad, BAD behavior no matter which way you slice it. DreamGuy (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm not sure about the details of the sockpuppet incident, but protecting sockpuppets is not on. The best way to deal with that is direct with Michael. I've seen him do some very worthy rescuing of articles, but he might be less critical than needed sometimes. I've argued to delete some articles he wanted to keep. Some of the articles I've helped to rescue took a lot of time, effort and imaginative searching, so I could understand those nominations, but I've seen some articles nominated and voted for delete without the least effort made at sourcing, which is frustrating. This is a prime example:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Friedman (composer). What annoys us up depends on our perspective, but the common factor is voting that doesn't seem to be considered, whether it is Keep or Delete. Fences and windows (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be direct with Michael, as when I brought that up on his talk page he was abusive and told me not to post there again... but then came here and was abusive and continued to be so even after I told him to follow the same rules he expects of me and not post here. I've never seen the guy make a good edit. I'm sure he must have made some somewhere (especially if you're willing to stand up for him), but it's not been my experience. DreamGuy (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DreamGuy, Mike asked me if it was OK for Varbas to remove the sock accusation tag from his talk page (see [3]). I said it was OK, on the basis that I'm AGFing that Varbas is not a sock (at least for the moment: Mike did acknowledge a possible relation with the current ANI regarding you here; you already know my suspicions and have made so on the ANI post). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MuZemike (talk • contribs) 00:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guy is about as obvious of a sock as one could hope to find: the same serial deprodding, the same highly deceptive claims made on AFDs, the relentless harassment of anyone who gets in his way. Checkuser doesn't nab everyone, and if i shows up as possible there instead of ruling it out that makes it all but certain they're the same. Michael has made it clear that he doesn't care about that as long as he has someone to help him vote the way he wants on AFDs, and if even he is forced to admit the suspiciousness involved, then it's pretty clear cut. DreamGuy (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WeeMee press releases

While I was surprised when I read the BBC reference and found it to be merely a press release reprint (shame on you BBC I expect more), the Boston Globe and the Telegraph articles are for me enough removed from simple press release regurgitations to qualify as "significant coverage". -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I care less about the article than editors routinely presenting mere press release and passing references as if they somehow provide evidence of notability. He could have cherry picked the best sources, but instead chose to throw up a huge long list of bad sources and then pretend that I violated some rule by not putting those in the article myself. He was either misrepresenting the strength of his case or fumbling around without basic knowledge of the rules of notability. Either way it's an ongoing problem, especially since he and some others (including a sockpuppet) are following around my AFD actions to make aggressive confrontations on them. DreamGuy (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Rodgers

This did indeed go through afd which is still open. Mind if I G6 the second nomination you just made, since it's clearly not needed? (And how the Fuddruckers did you miss the AFD, given the first nomination's tag was on the article and it was in only yesterday's log?) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it part of an AFD still open if there's no notice at the top of the article? Something needs to be cleaned up there. Maybe redirect the link on the AFD there there to the correct AFD so people know it's being discussed. DreamGuy (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notice is there. I see no point in redirecting, so I'll just tag it as G6. Or you can tag it as G7. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's happened there -- my browser's been acting funny for the last ten minutes. Might need to reboot. But I don't see any link to go to anywhere to G7 anything (was just a red link). DreamGuy (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone already baleeted the second nomination. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already deleted it (the #2 AfD). In the future, check the article history or the AfD main page just in case. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the talk page, saw nothing there about an old AFD, somehow did not see anything on the main article (no clue why not), and had no indication based upon the wording of the prod and deprod that anything else needed looking into otherwise I would have. Sorry about that. DreamGuy (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even here you can see your tag over top of the existing one. Weird. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


OK, is this just my browser, or does the AFD at the top of this page The D'ark Night Film Festival show a red link to other people too? I was going to try to fix that, but I see there is an AFD listing for it, and now I'm just way confused. DreamGuy (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The PropheC

Thank you for that nom, DreamGuy. I thought the {{prod}} with explanation would be sufficient for administrators, and whole that matter would be quickly resolved. If we need another procedure (more complicated, but also more transparent), I have no problem with that. Have a nice day. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friend of yours? :-)

Any idea who this is? 68.147.253.39 (talk · contribs) Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the edits on similar IP strings hounding me lately, it looks like it is User:Varbas aka User:Azviz. DreamGuy (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

references to self published novels

The primary reason that I would come to Wikipedia at all is that I can get information that may not be available elsewhere. This kind of hard to find information is available is because the people who are closest to the subjects of the articles have a forum in which they can share what they know. This includes information about works of art or other things that aren't in the mainstream. I will concede (now that you've pointed it out) that links to the purchase page for a book are against the Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia's policy of not even mentioning a book because it doesn't fit within the vague guidelines for notability, makes the system less informative than it could be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Molldyer (talk • contribs) 16:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your incivility

I have declined action, however several of your comments were rude and accusatory. I strongly advise you to avoid personal comments in the future. I know this has been your achilles heel; I know you have been baited. I also think you are capibile of rising above this better. Do not dissapoint me; next time I may determine you have gone over the line. Above all, if you find yourself assuming motive of another editor, do not post it. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of those edit comments and responses were not up to standards. I think in the future I should report editors making uncivil comments and harassment instead of waiting for them to work me up so they file complaints first. I suspect that if any of those people had been reported ahead of time that it could have pulled the rug out from under any attempts to report me later. Of course it looks like the person who filed this complaint at ANI was probably the latest sock of a banned user, but if it had just been an anon IP with no edit history versus me instead of the IP canvassing everyone who they thought might complain about me and having multiple individuals making it look like me versus all of Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: have you now, or have you had, a mentor? thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 17:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never had a mentor. Never had anyone mention it as a possibility. I don't know what it entails. DreamGuy (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically means you get a monkey on your back who bitch-slaps you when you screw up and tells you what you should have done instead. You do what they say, and have your arguments with them (hopefully not too many of those) and not with other editors. The idea is you are on a leash until you learn to behave. Not a very nie way of putting it, but more or less accurate. Most mentors are admins. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a lot more willing to try such things lately if it looks like there's any chance it'll help. Trying to go it alone when other editors go by groups doesn't work as well. DreamGuy (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, could someone please undo this edit removing my talk page comments? Promethean seems to not want me to be able to say things on my ArbCom page unless he agrees with them, which is not how things work, and is apparently going to edit war to get his way if he has to, just as he's been edit warring over the closed ArbCom report. DreamGuy (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Bad idea. Pick your battles; that is the wrong place to be arguing. You were blocked. That's done. Don't be presenting your side after the fact unless it is necessary - and don't edit that page at all. Ask yourself, what do you want to accomplish? and then ask, Will this accomplish that? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to accomplish having accurate and balanced info on my ArbCom sanction page, and the claims made on there about me give people the wrong idea. One of my major problems one this site is having an undeserved reputation with bad info out there about me. It's a talk page, and I expect the right to have my talk page comments respected just like any other user. If I want to remove my comments, fine, but a non-admin account who has a clear agenda against me should not be allowed to remove my comments there. This is a battle I will pick, as it's important to me. If you do not want to restore my comments I will look for someone who will, as it seems that I should be afforded at least the minimum amount of respect that people can't just up and erase my comments with no justification. DreamGuy (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add a comment to the talk page, that is a different item. However, lets go back to my litmus test: What do you want to do? You want to correct, update, or fix your reputation, yes? So that you aren't seen as a problem? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I see Promethian ignores closing of a section when he wants to edit it, but enforces when its you[4] However, do not edit a closed discussion. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

amd now you're edit warring with him??? Stop that. You know better. This is a clear case of you ignoring simple rules. What happened to Don't edit a closed discussion, Don't edit war, and in fact, what happened to 1RR? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was 1RR. I wasn't adding anything to the discussion, just adding a link that someone through email had chastised me for not including and implied I never had in the first place. It should have been there in the first place, otherwise it was an unsupported claim. The claim is supported. That doesn't seem to cause any harm by being there, but if it's going to be removed it should be by some uninvolved person, not the person that the information shows has been acting inappropriately. DreamGuy (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely that Promethean was the wrong one to revert you. That said, you were wrong to add it. Arcayne wanted to say something too, I believe a response to another post. Now it appears he never answered. Promethean thinks I ignored your edit summaries because I didn't specifically comment about them. I could correct that with a little copyedit, but the section is closed. Too darn bad. Too bad for you, too. Closed is closed. The request was declined, DG. Move on and ignore it. Ignore all accusations, questions, and unaddressed implications and insinuations. Leave it. You're like a dog, I swear. You don't know when being persistant is a good idea, and when it can only make you look bad. This is one of those second ones.
Suggestion: You may of course remove any and all posts from your talk page; I suggest you limit your edit summary to "Rmv." or something equally innocous. Angry edit summaries are not going to help you replace your rep with a better one. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, someone else thought it was a good idea for it to be there. If it's wrong, well, sorry I guess, but it was made in good faith, and it's over on my end now. DreamGuy (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; just don't edit closd discussions in the future, ok? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Works for me. DreamGuy (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of this discussion (not on my watch list), so apologies for reverting your edit back. I reverted it simply as the editor had broken 3RR, and I reported them at the same time. They have since been blocked (eventually!) If the edit had been a new comment or a big change I wouldn't have reverted, but would have still reported the other editor. I'd like to make clear that I haven't emailed DG, or received requests for edits from DG. Thanks, Verbal chat 21:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The right result

After all, gaming the system at editors under ArbCom sanction is about as civilized as poking sticks at caged animals. Don't take the bait. pablohablo. 20:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

On an afd here "and if the editor in question had some sort of purpose on Wikipedia other than deprodding everything, voting keep on everything that then goes to AFD, and attacking anyone who questions him. He might as well be a bot for the kind of edits he's doing." are unacceptable. That's a personal attack, and you should strike it immediately. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NPA, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." The part that you are missing is the "that lack evidence." Accurately describing the behavior of an individual is not a personal attack. If the accurate description makes someone look bad, it's because of their own behavior, and the correct way to prevent looking bad is not to expect nobody to point out problem behavior but to not make the problem behavior in the first place.
I will strike that comment if it makes you happy, however, and because I don't particularly care if it stays or not. I would recommend, though, that if your goal is to decrease WP:DRAMA that your posts here be less confrontational. A more civilly worded comment, something like, "Some people might question if this comment of yours [link] could be considered a personal attack. You might want to consider striking it." would go over better. Having people make demands upon my behavior in aggressively worded comments, especially while ostensibly aiming for improving overall civility on the site, gets quite tiring. DreamGuy (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. OTOH, I'm not on civility parole from ArbCom, so I can afford to be a little less tactful. :-P
I'll try to word things better in the future, but be aware - striking (and preferably, not making such comments in the first place) is not to make me happy, I'm trying to help you get out from under this cloud you're under. Because of your history, you have to be a little more civil than the average editor (and a good bit more civil than I, and scads more civil than your stalkers) if you want to put this all behind you. If we decide to formalize this into mentorship, then I'll tell you what to do, just as I did above, rather than make polite suggestions. You'll either mind, argue with me about it, or disregard me - but if you complain about my phrasing, I would probably resign as your mentor. It wouldn't be worth my time. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
FYI - in cas you missed it, Varbas has indeed been blocked as a scokpuppet. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Thank you for letting me know. Didn't see a notice pop up anywhere. DreamGuy (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cryptozoology

Just to let you know, as you can see here I have, at least for now, backed off my advocacy of the stronger pseudoscience wording on this topic. I've expanded some of the quotes in the intro to give what I think is a better overview of the relevant source, but I've left the essential approach the same. You and others have made some good arguments, and in deference to the possibility that I was inadvertently off NPOV I'm going to leave this debate alone for a bit and see where things go and think over all the sources and arguments more fully. I'm certainly strongly considering the possibility that your proposed approach is more neutral than the one I was championing. If I do end up still feeling that a stronger wording is warranted, I will at most proceed with an amicable RFC somewhere down the line, but I will not revert to the previous stronger wording without discussion and/or community comment. Thanks for your work in keeping this page on point. Locke9k (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think ultimately it'd be nice to have short views from a variety of sources instead of so much from a single source, but I have no objection to your current version. I do think there's no need or us to make the encyclopedia state a view that it is pseudoscience when we should just be quoting reliable sources about what they say. DreamGuy (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue

Please see this discussion on Drawn Some's talk page for an explanation of those tags:[5] Fences and windows (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wacky. I still think the rescue tag is unnecessary and should be assumed from the AFD tag. DreamGuy (talk)
I agree that editors should try to improve articles at AfD anyway if they believe the article is salvageable. There is a problem of some inappropriate use of the tag (aside from tagging sprees) and I'm interested in working out guidelines to removing it in some cases. Fences and windows (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Varbas

Thanks for the heads-up. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xenotalk 14:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note, I checked out your user page and agree completely with the comments regading experts. I find it sadly ironic however that with respect to the above page you seem to be acting just like the people being criticized. Research into the Rorscghahc is ongoing, experts continue to use it widely, and experts consider it harmful to view the image with respect to test results (but naturally non-experts know better because they intuitively think it's ridiculous). In this debate, you seem to be arguing, alongside other nonexperts, against every expert involved in the article who has contributed referenced material tot hat article. How unfortunate and ironic (and my intention wasn't to harrass or insuilt you, feel free to erase this if you wish).Faustian (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think presenting this as a case of experts versus non-experts is both misleading and self-serving, as there are many experts who disagree with your stance. This is reflected in the content and references of the article in question. My personal background in clinical psychology is actually a fair bit beyond that of an amateur, though I am not currently a practicing professional in the field. I was specifically trained to administer Rorschach tests many years back and was not impressed, and reading the professional criticism of the method only solidified that conclusion. But even if I did not have this background I would still be capable of seeing conflicting sources and respecting that any encyclopedic coverage of a topic must not just give in to the demands of someone representing only one side. DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the list of people taking various sides clearly shows that most of the ones seeking to limit the image are experts and most seeking to show it as much as possible are nonexperts. Furthermore, as referenced in the article, 80% of experts in assessment use this test and 80% of training programs teach it. Many of the criticisms have been addressed, and even the harshest critics concede that it is useful in some limited ways (i.e., assessing psychosis). There don't don't seem to be any experts who feel that it is completely useless. So the consensus among experts is that it is useful, although a minority do feel its utility is limited. Your comment "(And are people even still using these? Seriously? It was a nice parlor game about a century ago, but I'd hoped the field had moved on by now.)" seemed to indicate that you were far from an expert on this test and its uses. Personally, I rarely use it so I have no "ulterior motives." With respect to "giving in" the question isn't whether or not to include it it all but taking into account all sides through compromise (such as by placing it in the test materials or method sections). Can you live with a compromise?Faustian (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the compromise is that there's only one image up instead of a number of them. Some people expressed interest in having more images there, and I think that'd be perfectly acceptable. The consensus to have one image was pretty strong, so I suspect editors wouldn't be opposed to having more. If that current situation is unacceptable to you we could hammer out a new compromise, but it might end up being even less desirable to you than the current one. DreamGuy (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Making threats, incivility in the edit summaries. Sheesh.Faustian (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Kaczynski

DG,

Having looked through your talk page I don't know if it's a good idea to invite you back to a heated discussion, but nevermind..!

You were involved in editing Theodore Kaczynski before it was fully protected. Your thoughts and comments would be welcome on the talk page, as nothing much seems to be happening but the page is still locked. Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DreamGuy&oldid=293804233"