User talk:DreamGuy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:18, 26 July 2008

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 This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current.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, your posts are not welcome here. (This includes certain "admins" who only got their position through sucking up.) 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 mean here, this warning does not apply to you, so by all means leave a message.

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

"Finished" articles

No, I am not an admin, but I do know that you cannot tell how an article will finish until it's finished, hence my quite reasonable request to let me finish. Rather than get into an editing/revert war with you I deleted the aticle. Having started 95 articles here I hope I know something about writing them. Jack1956 (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article doesn't have to be "finished" to see that it isn't a noteworthy topic for a Wikipedia article. In this case the person was only noteworthy for her association with a killer. The killer already had an extensive article. It's been a standard practice on Wikipedia to not create separate articles for topics which already are covered in other articles to the full extent that they are noteworthy. If she would have been noteworthy for something other than that there may have been an argument for a separate article. Anything of note in her life should be added to that article, and of course only to the extent that it would be notable there. Otherwise she's just not notable. DreamGuy (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took your point. I had another long look at the article, saw that there was little that I could say that hadn't already been said, and deleted it. Jack1956 (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dissociative identity disorder

Hi DreamGuy,

Thought you'd be interested in knowing - the DID page has been reverted and a call made for discussion for such a major revision. I couldn't identify many changes to the page (table to paragraph, split controversy out of lead into its own section, I believe a section re-order, I'm guessing some content changes and a replacement of external links). Some of the changes I agree with, some I'm probably unaware of, and irrespective there's probably a need for dialog, if nothing else than to convince others of the merits of your changes.

Also, I know you're not archiving but have you considered an archive bot? No fuss, no muss, and it's automatic. WLU (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit wasn't a "major revision" -- it put it back to the version before someone else made an extreme wholesale change to the entire article in order to push his own personal opinion onto it. And I see that the editing after someone else reverted it has put back some of the most important content, so obviously I had good reason to do it.

No real need for an archive bot, and it just adds extra files for Wikipedia to hold onto. The history is always there, I see no need to make a whole other set of files that reduplicate the information. DreamGuy (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with your comment about replacing content/having merit, and I'll raise you a 'please review the page to see if there's any further changes you think should be un-revered.' I liked your conversion of the table into a paragraph, I'm sure there's others but it's hard to see it as a wholesale rather than section-by-section change. I'd say the page needs a good skeptical editor 'cause between 'swallowed hole' and 'bollocks' is a good page.

Anyway, hope you maintain an interest on the page. WLU (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion ongoing at Talk:Jack the Ripper

Just so you know, there's still discussion going on at Jack the Ripper. Don't know if you've seen any of it, so I figured I'd notify you in case you wished to participate and work towards a compromise. --clpo13_(talk) 01:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no real discussion going on there at all, just people complaining about edit warring while they themselves edit war for vanity reasons instead of improving this encyclopedia. Work towards a compromise? Funny, everything I do is ignored and blind reverted, and you yourself post inaccurate info about me (such as the false claim that I never gave any reasons for my edits). Can't really compromise with a group of people who violate policy and gang revert things for no reason. I think perhaps you should talk to those people who are the problem. DreamGuy (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, discussing on an article talk page is always a good idea. Reverting and re-reverting (by both parties) serves only to inflame the situation. Also, for the third time, would you please point out where your reasons/previous discussion occurred? I can't find any mention of it, which doesn't mean I'm ignoring it. Please, assume good faith and work with other editors instead of against them, even if they're working against you. --clpo13_(talk) 02:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for crying out loud, the reasons were mentioned earlier when it first came up, both in my edit comments and on the talk page, and now I have also added it again to the talk page in recent comments. If you can't find them you clearly are either completely unable or unwilling to. And, for the record, working with editors when they are working against you isn't working at all. I've been heroic in my attempt to assume good faith despite very clear evidence that people aren't making any. If you want me to assume good faith then you will have to at least make a small attempt at doing something that could be interpreted as good faith instead of continually making false accusations about my behavior and demanding I do things that you and others don't even try to do. DreamGuy (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, where? I'm not talking about your recent comments; those comments mentioned some previous reasons/discussion, which is what I'm referring to. Just provide some diffs and there will be no question about the issue at all. If you'd prefer, we can finish this discussion on the talk page, where I raised similar issues. --clpo13_(talk) 04:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how can you NOT see it? So now you say you see the recent ones, but that's not good enough, and you want me to point out old ones, because... what... I ahve to say something 10 times before you'll acknowledge it once? DreamGuy (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, all right. This isn't very productive. I think the problem is that our opinions on how much policy matters differs greatly, which may explain why I don't see any good reasons and you do. So, with that in mind, I'll quietly drop the matter here and constrain my discussion of it to the JtR talk page. --clpo13_(talk) 04:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow. For someone who talks about wanting to work together and establish consensus, suggesting that policy doesn't matter is akin to saying that you want to ignore the strongest consensus put together by the most experienced editors working together to try to make a proper encyclopedia for the sake of going with whatever small mob of people happen to congregate on individual articles. No wonder you and I don't see eye to eye. DreamGuy (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, there is WP:IAR. Second, I said nothing about ignoring consensus. But consensus changes. If those experienced editors don't all chime in, that's really not my fault. So far, you're the only one disagreeing on the talk page. --clpo13_(talk) 04:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Ignore all rules" is one of the dumbest things anyone ever came up with. And if you don't think policy is important, then you're ignoring the most important consensus of all. And if you say I'm the only one disagreeing on the talk page you again have not read it or are deceptive about it's contents. The removal of the EFIT section came based upon someone else first suggesting it, for example. DreamGuy (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy is violated?

There seems to be a revert war going on about policy violation at Jack the Ripper. I don't understand. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policy violated depends upon the section in question. The external link is a violation of WP:COI, WP:SPAM AND WP:EL, as explained multiple times. The big duplicate article about the Whitechapel Murders is a clear unambiguous violation of WP:CFORK. The content about the EFIT photo made for a documentary but not following standard EFIT protocol and not mentioned in any encyclopedic source is a violation of WP:ENC, WP:UNDUE, and a whole laundry list of others (notability, reliable sources, etc.). The constant blind reverting of everything I do is a clear violation of WP:AGF and any number of other rules on editor conduct.

As you say on your user page, "The truly weird and harmful to Wikipedia's credibility as an encylcopedia are those editors who insist on content that diverges from the Real WorldTM's understanding of a topic.", and that's what a nice little gang of people on the Ripper articles have decided to do.... one of them, USer:Arcayne, even specifically says anyone who is an expert in the field must be a crank and therefore their statements should not be included and that the only good sources are the ones who don't normally write about the topic. The articles about the Ripper are over time become more and more out of step with reality, to the point where it's become a topic of conversation by those in the field. DreamGuy (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that you were the person who blind reverted the article with the edit comment that it needs to be clarified on the talk page when you apparently didn't even look at the talk page before writing that. It's getting very tedious with people saying things need to be discussed first when they are the ones ignoring the discussion. DreamGuy (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing?

re you reverts at Mad Gasser: I am not POV pushing. I am not trying to say that there can only be on explanation and any others don't count. How can it be POV pushing to present information by someone who went to Mattoon and interviewed people there? Is that POV pushing? If so, in what way? I thought POV pushing was the opposite - editing out other views to emphasise the one you believe. I am not doing this so don't accuse me of it. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing is to remove views you disagree with (especially when they are the standard academic explanation by extperts) and to promote views you agree with (especially when they are fringe or amateur). DreamGuy (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I remove the standard academic explanation? No. Did you revert to a version with mistakes in? Yes. Please take care when reverting and editing, or at least cut and paste from an old version if you think something relevant got lost. Undo is not a precision instrument. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you remove the standard academic explanation? Yes, basically you did. You so completely removed almost all references to it that anyone reading it would think that it was the fringe theory while you devoted huge amounts of space to claims made by nonacademics with wild theories. In fact the version I reverted to could still use a lot of the fringe stuff (like most of that bad book) removed. DreamGuy (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Yes, you are quite right, I misunderstood the concept. My apologies. Jack1956 (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack the Ripper

What policy is being violated? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to your earlier post above, or the talk page of the article. DreamGuy (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to cause you stress. I'm just going to step away from all this. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Openshaw image

Hello again. I found it! Jack1956 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image was created and is now in the public domain in the United Kingdom, because its term of copyright has expired. According to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48), a reformation of the Copyright Act 1956 (c. 74), images fall into public domain:

Criteria	PD in UK if	PD in US as of 1st January 1996 if
Work was published by the British Government or a crown agency (see {{PD-UKGov}})	Created prior to 1974	Created prior to 1946 but the URAA may be inapplicable to some post 1946 works.[1]
A work by an identifiable author	Published by an author who died prior to 1954	Published by an author who died prior to 1926
Published work by unknown author that cannot be determined by reasonable research.	Published prior to 1954	Published prior to 1926
Unpublished work where neither the author or original publication can be determined by reasonable research.	Created prior to 1954	Created prior to 1926

More information at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents

This file is NOT necessarily in the public domain in the United States because a non-simple image can only be in the public domain in the U.S.:

if it entered the public domain in the United Kingdom prior to 1996, or
when, after that date, its copyright term expires in accordance with U.S. law.

Information about the creation date and creator should be provided.

If the image is not in the public domain in the United States, in addition to the license tag for its status in the United Kingdom an appropriate fair use license and rationale should be provided, or the image should be proposed for deletion.

If the media is in the public domain in both the United Kingdom and the United States, it may be transferred to the Wikimedia Commons.

Note: If this image is in the public domain in the U.S., modify the end of the copyright tag from }} to |commons}}.
This will replace the preceding U.S. copyright notification with a nomination for this image to be moved to the Wikimedia Commons.

}

Hi DreamGuy

Just wanted to say hello. I don't know you, and you probably don't know me, but I have been the subject of numerous unfair attacks and you seem to have had the same kind of experience as me, sometimes from the same people. I don't know if we have anything in common, but now I tend to sympathize with people who are visibly being harassed, whatever the reason. Please check my user page if you wish, and do not hesitate to ask if you need help sometime. I'll see what I can do. Best regards. PHG (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your comments, DreamGuy, on User talk:PHG. Anthøny 22:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you apologized quite sincerely to PHG and have promised to stop abusing your admin powers then any response you have over there is a pointless waste of everyone's time. DreamGuy (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you are incorrect. In fact, I get the general feeling that you are responding to me without researching the full facts of this case. I would suggest that you refrain from commenting further—it's really doing nobody any good, most especially yourself. Anthøny 15:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, YOU are incorrect. I researched the facts of the case enough to know that you acted completely inappropriately... and the end of your response here only shows that you are perfectly willing to use not so subtle threats to try to further back yourself up instead of following the policies you are supposed to be enforcing. Do not bother to post to my talk page again, as it's clear you are not here with actual Wikipedia business in mind but only in again trying to insist that people do what you say instead of doing what Wikipedia policies say. DreamGuy (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crippen

I see that you have deleted a couple of recent TV mentions of Crippen. What is perhaps important about these is that it shows that nearly a century after the trial, his name is still quite common in popular culture, which in itself is quite extraordinary for what was, after all, a fairly straightforward murder case. Other than Jack the Ripper, where at least part of the fascination lies in the speculation regarding the murderer's identity and motives, it is hard to think of any other comparable case that is still so widely remembered after so long. I would suggest that these recent passing references are significant for that reason, if only as examples of the case's continuing resonance in popular culture. RGCorris (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually every article in this encyclopedia has "continuing resonance in popular culture," but this is not Wikitrivia.org, it's supposed to be an encyclopedia. Mere mentions or passing references insignificant to the overall topic have been long established as failing Wikipedia notability standards. DreamGuy (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many entries in this and in all other encyclopedias that have absolutely no connection with popular culture but are there for reference purposes. The Crippen case stands out as one that is still widely recalled nearly a century later, when references to him on television are seen by the writers of the shows as needing no explanation; they are assuming that at least a good proportion of their audience will understand the reference. This is a significant part of the overall topic and therefore should pass the Wikipedia notability standards. RGCorris (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I guess you just don't understand Wikipedia notability standards, because this has been discussed over and over. DreamGuy (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VIVA EL JEFE MAXIMO!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.86.157 (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poles

We need a hardcore rationality warrior over on Stefan Ossowiecki; care to take a look? DS (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of haunted locations

Do you have any idea of Paris Labyrinth? See List_of_haunted_locations#France. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental autoblock

PhilKnight left a notice that I was blocked, then removed the notice. He says on his talk page here that he blocked in error and removed the block, but the block itself is apparently still there. I am signed on as DreamGuy but when I try to edit it says the IP I am on is autoblocked by PhilKnight because it was used by DreamGuy... apparently something got mixed up. I can't even edit PhilKnight's talk page to point out the problem.

Can you paste the autoblock notice (with your IP and the autoblock number?) We can't locate the block otherwise -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need, I found it so now I've unblocked it. You're free to edit. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the timely response. DreamGuy (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry for the complete screw up. 20:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's OK. Accidents happen. I'm just glad it wasn't a stealth block or something, as I didn't know what was going on until I looked through your talk page and happened to see that. DreamGuy (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's very decent of you. PhilKnight (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you look at my block history you'll see a lot of unblocks from blocks that were made in error. Most of the admins who did the incorrect blocks or botched unblocks refused to ever acknowledge any mistake and had to have other admins eventually overrule them (which they are usually very hesitant to do, but the cases have been pretty clear cut). The times that people do admit to an error are a welcome change. And, yeah, we all make errors, no biggee. DreamGuy (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of [alleged] haunted locations move

So... I haven't been around much lately. When I was last super-active, the article was at List of allegedly haunted locations. It was there because that's where it was moved after an AFD. Apparently, as a result of an ArbCom case on the paranormal, it was moved from there back to its original location; List of haunted locations. You moved it to List of alleged haunted locations. I noticed the move because of the absence of the "ly". A quick scan of the ArbCom case was not terribly enlightening... but there's a lot of reading there.

At any rate, I personally don't really care if the article's at List of haunted locations or List of allegedly haunted locations, but List of alleged haunted locations is grammatically incorrect. Plus, one really shouldn't move a page without at least dropping by the talk page and leaving a note first.

I'm asking an admin to move it back to List of allegedly haunted locations, and putting a straw poll on the talk page about the title. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify "we don't link to archives"

Hi DreamGuy. On your edit of the Ada Babbage page, you remark, when removing a link, that "we don't link to archives". I'm not sure what you mean by that. I skimmed through the WP:EL page you linked to, and searched it for "archive", but didn't get an answer. Would you mind filling me in please?--Pstevens (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Occam's Sword

Hi DreamGuy, would you please respond to my comments at the Occam's Razor Discussion page. Thank you Bert Carpenter Just to let you know, I've requested a third party opinion on this issue. Bert Carpenter (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)User:Bert Carpenter[reply]

By all means. DreamGuy (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

What information was removed? I was trying to be specific; now people are complaining there aren't weasel words? A.J.A. (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about pseudohistory. The information about what this person was claiming was completely taken out by your edit so that nobody reading it would understand what's even being mnetioned without clicking the link to see another article. Nobody is going to know the name of some random not-so-famous guy offhand and know what's being called pseudohistory, so it needs to explain it. In fact, I would think the person's name is least important, because there are a few political activists who make similar pseudohistorical claims and it's all of them that have been called pseudohistory, not just this one guy. DreamGuy (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FindingDulcinea

The discussion you reference when deleting links mentions replacing the FD links with the wp:rs links behind them. Why are you not doing that? NJGW (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these links are just external links and not anything that needs a source. In most cases, bits of trivia that were only added to the article in the first place by the spammers so they could justify adding the link. I am not obligated to add links to other sites to replace them. If you would like to go through after me and track down the original sources and link to them, by all means, knock yourself out. I have limited time and removing spam is more important to me. DreamGuy (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user complains

Don't edit my talk page. You know who I am, all too well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.120.142 (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a talk page. The IP address talk page belongs to anyone who might happen to sign on with that IP address. Only people with registered accounts have talk pages. As you've been permanently banned on your main account, any sockpuppet accounts, as well as any IP-based accounts, you have no say in anything. And, geez, why are you still showing up years later to vandalize pages, especially in such a juvenile and pointless manner? You know they'll just get reverted instantly, and you know I just yawn whenever it happens. Half the time I don't even see it because people have already fixed it and blocked you again. And, as far as silly vandals go, I wouldn't have known who you were if you hadn't used the account to edit out your email address from something you posted on your main account ages ago. In the grand scheme of all the various bad apples at Wikipedia over the years, you aren't even memorable. If you're desperate for attention you surely should be able to find something more productive to do with your time. DreamGuy (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, point taken - I am not that guy you think, though. Just a joke edit, sorry for causing trouble... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.120.142 (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seen this?

User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing. Thought you'd be interested. WLU (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 144: / Line 144: @@
 [[User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing]].  Thought you'd be interested.  [[User:WLU|WLU]] ([[User talk:WLU|talk]]) 18:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
-== Please use the discussion page ==
-your recent alterations to the text are not in keeping with consensus. I would invite you to discuss your proposed edits and seek a consensus for them in the discussion area. While some of them, in particular a replacement of a reference, is a useful change, the remainder don't appear to reflect the consensus on the issue. You have been ''bold'' in adding in (again) those particular edits. They have been ''reverted''. As per the [[WP:BRD]] model of consensus-building, you can now use ''discussion'' to discuss and convince the rest of us why the changes should remain. Please do not revert the changes back in until you have achieved a consensus for their inclusion. Thank you. - [[User:Arcayne|<span style="color:black">'''Arcayne'''</span>]] [[User talk:Arcayne|<small><span style="color:gray">(<sup>'''cast a spell'''</sup>)</span></small>]] 19:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)