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 This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current.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.

Note: If you are here to leave personal attacks, false accusations of vandalism, a long tirade about why your cat photo or article about yourself should be left alone as you and only you wanted, nonsensical rationalizations of why vampires, ancient astronauts, werewolves, "creation science" and so on should be treated as completely real and so forth, do not bother, as I'll either just remove them right away or simply point you to the appropriate Wikipedia policy which you should have read in the first place.

Otherwise please add new comments below (you can use the handy dandy + tab next to "edit this page" at the top of the screen).

No baiting zone

I am watching this page. If you are one of the small number of editors who User:DreamGuy has previously asked not to post here, please respect his wishes. If you need to resolve a problem, feel free to ask me or another administrator for help, or use one of our friendly dispute resolution mechanisms. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy and i have had issues in the past. He has not requested my absence here, and, as you can see, my post below is of a conciliatory nature. --DashaKat 12:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with that. Conciliation is a good thing. Happy editing. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, his claim that I have not requested his absence here is false... In fact he was specifically told never to post here again by myself and also one or two admins previously. Of course I have no problems with him wanting to start fresh. DreamGuy 15:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't recall either of those situations, but whatever. --DashaKat 20:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Information

I am trying to get a link to a site that deals with real life stories of MPD not just clinical studies or "this Dr. said that his patient" type of writings.

Is there no way to get a link to a very valid site that tells the true story of MPD and not some sensationalism type of article, only?

Please let me know. I'm trying to get the word out that you can live with MPD and I was recently featured on a show for this very reason. How else can I let others know?

Every article always goes to the extreme cases and it would be nice if Wiki would reference real life situations, not just clicnical theories of DID or someone else telling the story for a multiple.

Ty for the information,

Cat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscateyes (talk • contribs) 04:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI for how to handle suggesting links to sites you are affiliated with, as well as WP:EL and WP:SPAM for the kinds of sites we would and would not link to in the first place. I think it'll be a tough sell to convince others that this personal blog would serve any encyclopedic purpose. DreamGuy 15:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Vlad Tempis Dracula

Hey...I offered you some photos of Dracula's Snagov gravesite, fotress, chapel, etc. that I took over the summer, but you did not respond. Are you interested? --DashaKat 12:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing that offer. Is this supposed to be for work on some article here? DreamGuy 15:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Purely personal. Here the original post, dated 9 Sept 07...

Hey...I'm taking some time off, but before I disappear, I understand that some of your interests lie in occult legend and myth, specifically werewolves, vampires, and the like. I just returned from Romania, and had an opportunity to spend time in Snagov, as well as Bran. I'm wondering if you'd be interested in the pictures I took of Vlad Tempes' gravesite, and the church in which it resides. I've got a great shot of one of his original impaler devices, as well as a shot of the well he forced to have dug by hand...actually by hand...no tools. I even had a drink out of it...kinda creepy, but the water is sweet. Gory stuff aside, the church itself is magnificently painted and maintained.

Best...--DashaKat 20:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

NNDB

Hi, I have renominated the nndb template- Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_29#Template:Nndb_name. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, see my comment at the end of the tfd discussion- I think there has been some organized defending of NNDB going on by people associated with Soylent Communications and Rands. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, as it has happened in the past when I brought up NNDB elsewhere. By the way, I mentioned this on the WP:EL talk page because the editors there had previously ruled the site to be spam, which is where some of the recent delete votes came from. I don't know if it will be enough though. Over and over there we're seeing that people working with an agenda can mobilize and appear to be lots of people so that it overwhelms editors who genuinely care about the topic and who happen to take note of the controversy and take the time to express an opinion. With sockpuppets, paid marketing assistants at companies who have Wikipedia editing as part of their ob descriptions and so forth we've really got our work cut out for ourselves. DreamGuy 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom enforcement complaint filed

I am not sure if you received the notice and removed it, or if the person filing the complaint forgot to notify you, but I wanted to make sure that you were aware that such a complaint has in fact been filed, noting violations of both Wikipedia policies and your previous ArbCom restrictions. As per policy, you are supposed to be notified. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to file complaints, but it would be better for everyone involved if you didn't waste everyone's time with false accusations. The person who brought it up in the first place said there was nothing actionable and that he also regretted even bringing it up. You jumped on it with all the same false claims you have been making elsewhere, and the other people there also pointed out that you had nothing worth reporting. So please just give it a rest already.

Also, please heed the admin's warning above and do not post to this page. DreamGuy 18:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are greatly misinterpreting the ArbCom enforcement complaint, but then, that's okay - every man is the hero in his own story. As for heeding the admin's warning, my posts to you have not been an attack or anyting less than civil. Are you opting to ban me from your User Talk page? Please recall that, until your usage of alternate IPs to edit and defend your primary account positions within articles, you had my unfailing support. However, simply say that you don't want me to post any questions to your user talk page again, and I won't. Ionly posted recently to inform you of the ArbCom enforcement complaint, as others had apparently failed to adivse you.It was your right to know. I am sorry that you took umbrage to that notification. It wasn't as if I've ever attacked you or been uncivil. Compared to others you have banned, i am actually a big fluffy kitten. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

When you've been asked not to post to a user's talk page, continuing to post is a form of harassment. Please find something else to do besides posting here. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asked before I noted his comment. I was seeking clarification. Perhaps you can defend your pal against someone who's actually uncivil? Either way, I shant post here again. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 01:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect... You were explicitly told several times not to post here. DreamGuy 23:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy_2 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering that I have been blocked... and for not apparent reason, I might add... I can't respond over there, but there is absolutely no evidence of any activity that qualifies as sockpuppeting, because I have not done so. DreamGuy 23:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello DreamGuy. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

- Jehochman ^Talk 02:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, when linking to ANI, it is more helpful to link to the actual section in question. And of course, if your claim is that I am "free to comment at the discussion," that kind of becomes impossible when you then go ahead and block. DreamGuy 00:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Block

This is a one week block. It will be discussed, and may be lengthened. Please post comments here and I or another editor may proxy them to the ANI thread. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

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:

absolutely no reason given for this block, at all... Claims of using a sockpuppet are absolutely false. Claims of breaking 3RR are also absolutely false. It'd be nice if the editor making the block actually took the time to show actual evidence of either even happening before blocking. I look at the page he linked to about this "discussion" but see no discussion other than merely taking the word of an editor who has clear personal conflicts with me and has invented up totally false accusations...

Decline reason:

Plenty of evidence that trouble has been caused by this user. — Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

---

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.

Furthermore, when the editor who blocked me is asked (on the ANI page) to provide a reason for doing so, so far all he has replied with is a link to a page full of long, long accusations by an editor who has a personal conflict with me, and then to link to four comments I made as allegedly being uncivil yet that only showed examples of me bending over backwards to be civil to editors who were making false accusations, talking about the editor and not the edit, and so forth. A block should be based upon something real. DreamGuy 23:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason given was disruptive sockpuppetry, as supported by strong evidence. I've told El C (or any other admin) that they can unblock you if they wish. When your block is lifted or expires, please don't edit war, and especially don't use sock puppets to edit war. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What "strong evidence"? Surely if there is such evidence, you could give links to diffs to show it. I did not use any sockpuppets to edit war. If you blocked me for doing so, surely you could give an example... If you cannot, then you should do the right thing and undo the block. Even if Arcayne's claims are all 100% true (and they aren't), there's nothing there that would be sockpuppeting. And, on top of that, I don't know why you can call me "disruptive" and to further state you want me blocked so other people can edit an article without my input when they have not taken any effort to build a consensus... This block is the result of Arcayne edit warring being uncivil and then deciding that, when I tried to have a real discussion about the article, that he'd rather just find a way to get me blocked than to deal with what Wikipedia is supposed to do: debate changed on an encyclopedic basis, following policies, to improve the articles... And in this case all you are doing is basically encouraging people to skip consensus building and instead just make false accusations to get their way. DreamGuy 00:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

From above: "Decline - Plenty of evidence that trouble has been caused by this user. — Adam Cuerden "

Would it be too much for someone to actually provide such evidence? Because, honestly, so far all I've seen is an editor (User:Arcayne) who has been very combative, uncivil, and so forth making accusations of 3RR violation, but no edit diffs to prove such a thing. DreamGuy 00:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you asked, the sockpuppetry evidence is linked at User talk:71.203.223.65. Are you denying that that's you? Or just denying that using an IP account to avoid scrutiny while your ArbCom case was pending was "disruptive"? Dicklyon 00:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am specifying denying that any activity that IP address did, if I had been signed onto it, could at all meet the definition of "sockpuppeting". You can't just find some label that's accusatory and assign it to anyone you want to try to make someone sound bad. I have not disrupted Wikipedia on this account, on any IP account, or in any combination of accounts. DreamGuy 00:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny says "Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this may occasionally be legitimate (see below under legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts -- or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account -- in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions." That's what you did by switching all your edits to an anonymous account, pretending to have left wikipedia, when the ArbCom case was opened about Aug. 24. Remember now? Dicklyon 01:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I did leave Wikipedia for a while... but I did not do anything to confuse or deceive anyone. I don't know why spending some time having a life for a change is construed as a bad thing, and I get tired of being accused of all sorts of bad behavior by people who do not seem to follow the basics of WP:AGF and so forth. The bottom line here is that my edits are good edits that improve the encyclopedia, I have bent over backwards to follow all ArbCom rulings, and people filing false complaints and getting me blocked temporarily aren't going to force me off this project just so that they don't have to try to work toward consensus or follow Wikipedia policies they would rather not follow. DreamGuy 01:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that 71.203.223.65 was not you? Dicklyon 02:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, folks, if this is a test to see if I will remain friendly and civil while being blocked by people who give no reason and who refuse to discuss it, I think I've proven myself to remain civil under even the most outrageously trying circumstances. But then I have a long history of getting blocked by admins who haven't really looked into the situation much at all and being unblocked by admins who do, so I guess I'm getting used to this kind of treatment. When the block is lifted (hopefully sooner rather than later) I'll still be making all the good edits to improve this encyclopedia. DreamGuy 00:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please write up your side of the Arcayne story and email it to one of the Arbitration clerks so they can add it to the discussion. If I've misunderstood the situation, I am sure they will straighten it out quickly. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)