User talk:DreamGuy

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 This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current.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

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)[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]

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]

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]

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 case you missed it, Varbas has indeed been blocked as a sockpuppet. -- 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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Columbus'(s) egg

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

John Borowski

Fron Wikipedia entry on John Borowski:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Film noir

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Old copyvio"

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Le Zombie

This is one of the seminal fanzines of its time, one which earned its editor a big chunk of his fame as a Hugo-winning fan writer. Descriptions of it tend to use words like "legendary". I've added just one such reference, from a major mundane newspaper in another country, where Le Zombie is also known to the cognoscenti. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get the required number of reliable sources to demonstrate notability and you'll be fine. If you can't then I guess it isn't notable for the non-cognoscenti on Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Accusations of sockpuppetry at Smiley face murder theory

Please explain your vague sockpuppet accusations (on the Talk:Smiley face murder theory page) or remove them. Being the only other editor currently engaged there I can only assume you are suggesting I am sockpuppetting. Please back that up with facts or remove the allegation. Padillah (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you say you are the only other editor currently engaged there then it seems you agree that the other accounts posting to the page other than myself and you are the same person... which is pretty blatant and my entire point. It appears you got confused because the person posting there is so obviously the same individual that you didn't even notice that it was using two different accounts to make the posts there. That's a pretty clear indication of a WP:DUCK sock. DreamGuy (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get it. And you may have a point, it had not even occurred to me until I looked real hard. Please accept my retraction, the accusation was a bit vague and I wasn't sure who was included in it. Padillah (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I can see where you could get confused, and I didn't spell it out there. DreamGuy (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derf

Due to some weird TW glitch, it seems that the AfD discussion page for this one was not created. You might want to take another look. Tim Song (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from My Friend Dahmer

Hello DreamGuy, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to My Friend Dahmer has been removed. It was removed by Orangemike with the following edit summary '(decline prod; perhaps suggest that it be merged into Derf instead?)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Orangemike before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

Smiley face murder theory

I have posted some elaborations of the statements I made in the RFC, but it doesn't seem to help much. It appears that there is a major case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on on that talk page. Meanwhile I've had my hands full trying to remove unsourced statements and original research of all kinds from other articles. *** Crotalus *** 18:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Articles Deleted, Regarded as Spam

Hi DreamGuy, I noticed articles that I edited were deleted because they were regarded as spam. How would I go about getting them back on? Do I have to delete the external links? That would not be a problem. I didn't realize it when first creating them. I am not affilated with the author or Amazon. I am a fan of the whole genre for the book and wanted to list it for others who would be interested. Thanks for the help and info. Jmurphy86

Hi DreamGuy, I read over the articles regarding spam and conflict of interests. I will go ahead and reinsert the edits excluding any external links or mentions of sites where the product is available. Please let me know if there is anything further I should do or know. Again, sorry, next time I will research further on Wiki's policies. Thanks. Jmurphy86 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmurphy86 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still advertising for a book published through a vanity press, so still spam. DreamGuy (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Keto

Hey, I'd like to discuss the Keto/Ketos issue. Every ancient source refers to these entities as separate beings, right down to the fact that the gendering in the names is different (Keto vs. Ketos). You can find every single ancient source on these two disparate characters at http://www.theoi.com/Pontios/Keto.html and http://www.theoi.com/Ther/KetosAithiopios.html. I'd like to see this issue resolved, because the goddess really ought to have her own article. Right now it's implying that the goddess is the same entity as the sea monster slain by Perseus, which is unsupported by the ancient texts. Expert opinion cited on those websites (from the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, for example) also supports the idea that these are two different beings.

I welcome your thoughts. Proserpine (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing we would need to state that these were separate beings is some reliable source saying so. It's not uncommon for the same figure to be rendered with slightly different names, or even completely different titles (in fact the pages you link to detail several for each), but the difference in names doesn't necessarily make them separate mythological figures. In this case you keep stressing that Keto was a goddess, but that's really kind of misleading as she doesn't have regular goddess-like features or worship and was a sea monster herself, and mother of many other monsters, none of which were goddesses. Declaring this to be two separate entities appears to me to fall under original research. If you find reliable sources making this claim, that we can cite them as holding that opinion, but you cannot use Wikipedia to say your own opinion as if it were a fact. DreamGuy (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to find any kind of source indicating that they are the -same- being, so I think -that- is the original research here. Keto isn't anywhere described as a sea monster except in that her name is derived from the word for sea monster. She's depicted, meanwhile, in ancient art (such as the Gigantomachy frieze at the Pergamon Altar of Zeus) as a humanoid goddess like any other. Consensus seems to be on my side over at Cetus (mythology), so I'll let this go for now.Proserpine (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for 1 week following continued disruptive editing against consensus. You're welcome to appeal this block using {{unblock}} and following the instructions at WP:APPEAL. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DreamGuy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Give me a break. The block length is way excessive even if the accusations were true, but they are not. Anyone who looks at the talk page would see there is no consensus (an equal number of people want to shorten the plot and want it to stay the same, and putting a tag there saying it needs to be looked at is not some "disruptive" change), and certainly User:Shoemaker's Holiday's reasons for removing the tag -- the claim that "WP:NOTPLOT only applies to articles where the plot is the only element there" -- are not at all in line with the actual policy (he wanted to try to change the policy so that it read that, but clear consensus rejected that argument). Blocks should not be applied willy-nilly, and especially not in cases where they are clearly being requested by an individual trying to wikilawyer his way into prevailing in a conflict. If the idea is that disagreements over editing in general without any violation of 3RR is enough reason to block, then every editor who ever disagreed could be blocked at will -- and certainly if this bizarre idea were applied fairly to all editors then Shoemaker's Holiday would also have been blocked for an equal amount of time. This block is simply without any foundation whatsoever.

Decline reason:

This request fails to address the reason for your block. You were not blocked for "disagreements over editing" but for editwarring - going over 3RR is not a necessary component of disruptive editing as I am sure you know. If you choose to submit subsequent unblock requests please address your own conduct and not the merits of you position in the content dispute. — Jake Wartenberg 21:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Oh, so, I guess the I was not actually blocked for the reasons stated by the admin that blocked me? I addressed the reasons that the admin said he blocked me for. I guess some admins think they can just make nonsense up and block for no reason. DreamGuy (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I offer to unblock (without agreeing or disagreeing with the edits or the block) if DreamGuy will agree to not edit the Candide article for the original block duration. Edits to Talk:Candide or to any other articles (within normal bounds) would be unrestricted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy repeatedly orphaned an image I worked with until it had to be deleted. This was even though an administrator approved to keep it after DreamGuy put it for deletion. He disrupted edits I made without any clear reason. I felt as if I was being harassed.--ChubsterII (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't "have to be deleted", it was deleted because it was a copyright violation and served no purpose. If it had a legit purpose here it would not have been deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your worrier

Reminds me of Thief. Simply south (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what are you referring to? DreamGuy (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Croped BFRO image.jpg

If you believe I made an error in judgment, the process is to list the image along with your rationale at WP:DRV. Regards Nv8200p talk 19:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Request for help

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was away from Wikipedia for an extended period and did not get a chance to look into this. DreamGuy (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mediation of Cryptozoolgy Articles

A Mediation Cabal (Informal Mediation) case to which you have been named a party has come up for mediation by Ronk01 talk. Please navigate to the casepage, located here: [1], and leave an opening statement as instructed there. You will also need to sign your agreement to the mediation there. If all listed parties do not sign, the case will be referred to RFC and closed immediately. You will be updated on further progress of the mediation on your talk page. 14:41, 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).[reply]

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

Shadow Fox

I posted this page with my 5th grade students. We are using the book in our classroom, and created the page showing how Wikipedia links together information so it can be useful for research (something that the book does too). The page is based on the Johnny Tremain Wikipedia page of similar format/style, so I am not certain why it is being flagged as spam. The book is used by many schools for U.S. History classes, and this article would benefit those classrooms as well. The Shadow Fox post replaced a page that was marked for deletion and had a redirect to a cartoon character that is part of a different page on Wikipedia (note the associated discussion on that page). Please let me know how/why the redirect to another page of this style would replace that of the book that I posted. Replying on my page is fine if you wish.

Woodrow123 (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Possible evasion of ban by User:NYScholar

I have started a thread at Possible evasion of ban by User:NYScholar, which you may be interested in. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I need your assistance on Skylon to prepare it for GA review. From what I have seen of your work, you are pretty committed to reverting POV and WP:WEIGHT issues, and we need people like you on this article to provide a second perspective. If you are not interested, please notify some editors in your reach who would be able to help. Thanks!--Novus Orator 09:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

h2g2

Re: [2], how is it that h2g2 fails the rules at WP:EL? I had removed it as a reference, something I really need to get around doing on several hundred more articles, but thought it was probably OK as an EL under WP:ELMAYBE. Fences&Windows 23:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding of when it was discussed on the EL talk page in the past, it's basically edited by the public but with no history of stability. It would fall under the rules against competing wikis. DreamGuy (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Servant Girl Annihilator article sourced

I sourced the Servant Girl Annihilator article. This series of murders was covered in a long feature article in Texas Monthly in 2000. Sources from books are available online. The original article was incomplete and inaccurate. This page got 2.5k visits on Jan 13, and what they read was wrong, according to the published sources. I sourced the article for the benefit of the wikipedia community, taking my lead from your comment that it needed to be sourced. Please advise if more are needed. I am proud to contribute to Wikipedia, and I believe in its mission.