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 This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current.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

DreamGuy: online tournaments is not an encyclopedic purpose for an external link on Wikipedia... we are not a web directory.

Bumpy Blop: Why not? Tournaments are an important part of the history of the game, in my opinion.

I still don't see why the only site where you can find the results of the only tournaments held in relation to the company which owns the rights of the game would not be an important part of the game's history.

It may "[fail] WP:EL policy quite badly", but cannot understand why for now, and I cannot accept such a statement without something looking like an explanation...

Bumpy Blop - 2007/05/29 - 13:05 (UTC)

The problem is I've already given explanations, and WP:EL gives explanations, and "Wikipedia is not a web directory" is plenty of explanation all by itself. Whether you choose to accept it is not my problem. DreamGuy 04:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree! You haven't given any real explanation... For me, WP:EL does not give an explanation justifying the removal of the link I am talking about. OK, "Wikipedia is not a web directory", but that does not mean any link should be removed, hence it is completely pointless to quote it here. And it is our problem to find a common reason to remove the link, because there would be else a conflict, since I would bring the link back, judging it totally relevant to appear on this website.

Bumpy Blop - 2007/06/03 - 12:50 (UTC)

At this point, I'm sorry, but I fear you are just being dense for the sake of being dense. External links must serve an ENCYCLOPEDIC PURPOSE. The ones you want there DON'T EVEN COME CLOSE. We are not a web directory, so any of your claims about it being handy for players or whatever are completely irrelevant. What part of encyclopedic do you not understand? Did I ask you yet if you are affiliated with the website(s) you want the links to? Because it sounds like you want them there for promotional reasons, which is spam in this case. This is a pretty basic concept, already fully explained. You're ignoring it all, disagreeing, and then claiming no explanation was given doesn't get you anywhere. DreamGuy 17:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, you don't answer to my questions. Why wouldn't the results of some championships be relevant in an encyclopedia? That's what I cannot understand, because if it is irrelevant, why don't you delete the names of the MSO champions then? I just want to know what makes these ones relevant compared to other champions... I don't mind if the website i-abalone (which I am not affiliated with) is not included in the external links directly, I just want to get an answer to the question above. Thanks.

Anyway, I am just telling myself that MSO's website is not in the links; if so, according to you, it would be irrelevant, I guess; hence I am wondering if it would be relevant to put the names of other championships' winners in the article. What do you think?

Well, there is an article about the MSO here, with a link to its website. Would it be encyclopedic to add an article about the Abalone championships held on-line, with then a link to the website where the results are?

Bumpy Blop - 2007/06/14 - 10:56 (UTC)

With all due respect, I would appreciate it if you would sign this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Frat_pack Kevin Crossman 04:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care enough about the topic to waste my time trying to punt a dent in your self-promotional and vanity edits. Your activities, however, are such a clear violation of Wikipedia policies that hopefully someone else will deal with it. If not, hey, it's not like you can do too much damage anyway. Being the world's greatest expert on some neologism of some actors is something most people wouldn't bother wanting to be their sole accomplishment in life.

Also, the "mediation" through that system is ridiculous. The people who declare themselves mediators just up and decide whatever *they* think as consensus that everyone on the article from then on has to follow, which is completely against how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. Article editing is supposed to be done by a group of informed editors on the topics and people who follow policy, mediation is a complete reversal of that. DreamGuy 15:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Frat pack.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

You'll probably read my comments on the article's talk page, but I wanted to formally request that you not do what you did to that article again. I assume that in your zealousness to make a great encyclopedia, you went a little far. However, my main reason for commenting here is to assure you that despite my opposition to your specific behaviour and edits, I really do appreciate the sentiment and the want to help make Cold iron a much better article.Arbadihist 10:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not do what I did to it? You mean FIX IT? Oh gosh, it really sucks when somebody takes an article full of ignorant nonsense and has the nerve to improve it! I am formally requesting you stop complaining and, if you want to make it a good article, don't revert it back to the horrible version. If you tihnk you can find actual reliable references to support some of the claims that it used to say, then get them, and document them, and put them as what those sources say and not as if they were historically true, which they most certainly are not. DreamGuy 18:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I appreciate the effort and your willingness to help with the article, which needs improvement. However, barging in arrogantly like you did, and making inflammatory edits like you did, and criticizing the lack of some sources while lacking reliable sources for provocative claims of your own, which you did, is usually not appreciated. However, you did get rid of some junk, which I said that I think is laudable. I think that we could have some fruitful work done if you wouldn't give the imnpression of being arrogant in your edits.Arbadihist 20:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You thinking that I am arrogant is not the issue; fixing the encyclopedia is. It's not "barging in", it's being bold and doing what EVERY editor is SUPPOSED to do when they see something that bad. And your claim that I didn't have reliable sources for my edits in nonsense, as the information in the article about horseshoes and fences and etc. prove that the claims that were there were complete nonsense. The old version made some outrageously ignorant claim and then proceeded to try to prove it by citing sources that proved themselves incorrect.

And if that was you who blind reverted several important changes to the article under the IP address User:128.223.60.87 you should learn to make informed edits instead of blind reverting for no reason. DreamGuy 21:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, I don't think you understand my claims. I don't deny that iron was thought of as a safeguard against evil spirits, and one didn't need terms such as "cold iron." What needed to be substantiated is your claim that it was modern fantasy fiction which first started recognizing a specific, magical type of iron called "cold iron." I have the reference of Grose and the reference from Kipling that seem to give the lie to your position. I have no problem with you being bold, I do have a problem with you acting in an insulting manner, sometimes seeming to equate some editors with fanboys, and being hypocritical by insisting on sources for other claims, but putting your claims and denying the need for sources.Arbadihist 21:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Grose and Kipling are talking about iron in general, and using "cold iron" in a poetic sense, like "cold steel." It was ignorant people who saw those references and were unable to read for context and invented up some fantasy fiction nonsense like they were talking about some special kind of iron when they weren't. I am not denying the need for sources, I am pointing out that the sources already overwhelmingly verify the changes I made and contradict the way you had things. DreamGuy 18:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the problem was not your desire to change the article. The problem was your method and language that you used. Instead of making constructive points, you immediately inserted insults and quasi-personal attacks. I have no problem with collegial debate, and have several times stepped aside when proven wrong. However, you have discouraged rational discussion by inserting vitriol, epithets, pejoratives, and/or hyperbole into most of your posts. This is not the way to convince people to listen to you. --Dunkelza 04:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure that you leave messages for people on their talk page and not their userpage as you did with User:Biaothanatoi, make sure you leave messages on the talk page. I have moved the discussion to the correct place. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 20:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, must have clicked the wrong link. Nice to see the person has been repeatedly warned in the past. It's long past time he/she got blocked. DreamGuy 20:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any record of the proposed policy that was rejected? Do you remember any of the details? The current external links guideline says that external wikis are links normally to be avoided "except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Substantial in whose opinion? Stable in whose opinion? No mention of quality or neutral point of view, which is shocking. Don't we have enough trouble keeping the Wikipedia squared away? I'm all for quality free content, but not free content for free content's sake. Best, MoodyGroove 01:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

I'll reply on your talk page. DreamGuy 17:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your edit on serial killers. You wrote "(→Missionary - 151.194.4.22 changed their to her when their was correct, plus removed or/opinion/silliness about ripper in this section, just uncited speculation against general knowledge of authors)".

The context is: "So-called missionary killers believe that their acts are justified on the basis that they are getting rid of a certain type of person (often prostitutes or members of a certain ethnicity), and thus doing society a favor. Gary Ridgway and Aileen Wuornos are often described as missionary killers. In Wuornos' case, the victims were not prostitutes, but their patrons." The bolded word is what was changed - previously it was "her". In this sentence, doesn't it refer specifically to Wournos' victims? Since she was female, wouldn't "her patrons" be correct?

• In Wuornos' case, the victims were not prostitutes, but their patrons."
• In Wuornos' case, the victims were not prostitutes, but her patrons."

Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't get why "their" is correct English in this sentence. (BTW, I wasn't the one who authored this section or modified it...I just noticed your comment in the history).

Also, I'm not sure that I'd have removed the reference to Jack the Ripper ("Arguably, Jack the Ripper may also fit this role"). It is somewhat speculative, but it's common speculation. I realize Wikipedia is not a place for speculation, but since Jack the Ripper is one of the most famous serial killers, I would expect to find him categorized in one of these areas. It's tricky, I agree. Better would be something that cited specific speculation by the chief ripperologists (which unfortunately I do not have handy). Not worth arguing about, I suppose - just wanted to say that it could be seen either way and is not perfect either way :-) Afabbro 03:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The victims were not prostitutes, but patrons of prostitutes. That's what the sentence is getting at. That would be their. The point was not that she would kill *her* patrons but that she would kill men who frequented prostitutes. The sentence could be worded more smoothly, granted, but the original version makes more sense than your version.

And good look finding any "chief" Ripperologist to cite who speculates that the Ripper was a Missionary killer. It's not at all a common belief in the field. It was proposed by some people at the time and slightly later who didn't really understand what motivated killers, and the idea was then featured in several fictional adaptations of the Ripper, but that's it. It's inclusion in the article was not only wildly speculative and unsourced but not at all in line with what the experts think. DreamGuy 17:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the chaos and related TfD mess here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_26#Template:FreeContentMeta Phil Sandifer was totally pushing this, but since he's an admin with a lot of friends, you'll have a hard time convincing him that those boxes are bad. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether anyone can convince him he's wrong doesn't matter, he is just plain wrong, and a number of people have told him so. Wikipedia is for everyone, not just pushy people with similarly pushy friends who want to make this their personal playgrounds instead of an encyclopedia to be proud of. DreamGuy 21:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasse do not remove deletion tags from images while the discussion is in progress. The ultimate fate of the image will be decided by an administrator. Thank you. -N 19:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note it was not I who removed the comment. -N 19:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When reverting you chose to revert to the reversion with the tag but without the comment, therefore you are equally responsible for removing the comment. DreamGuy 19:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC

I manually re-inserted the tag, thanks. -N 01:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, so you chose to manually reinsert the tag instead of revert to the version with the tag and the comment.... there's no practical difference. DreamGuy 01:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well you got me, I was the one who originated it and we both do edit han dynasty pages, but we certainly aren't the same fellow. I mean i have no problem with a ban, just thought I'd let you know that as fishy as it seems we really aren't the same person. Thats real unbelievable, so take it as you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whateverisclever (talk • contribs) (originally signed as Hardworker111 despite being signed in as Whateverisclever)

Man i'm confusing you so bad and its done being funny now. I'm the sockpuppet, i tried to trick you with the opposite signature, lol.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whateverisclever (talk • contribs)

• Kukini i was trying to mess with his head before i got banned and you ruined it! well anyway the jokes over, do what you must.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whateverisclever (talk • contribs)

Yup I see that here! Wildthing61476 00:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice both users's penchant for marking their edits as "minor". I haven't really investigated the matter beyond that. I'll leave it up to you to decide if this person uses 2 accounts maliciously. Do know that it's not against the rules to use 2 accounts constructively.--Atlan (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy. Question: Why do you want to get rid of the (unsorced? *) neologism? What is your wp philosophy behind this edit? I am new to Wikipedia and I am really interested in your rational. I think that, while it is unsourced and a neologism, and it could really use some clean-up, it's still an important component to knowledge about Photoshop. I think that we should change the section to say something like "There are many internet cultures/activities focused on humorous/creative editing of images commonly referred to as "photoshopping", but Adobe hates this term because, like Klenex or Band-Aid, if it becomes common usage the company will loose it's trademark" or something like that.

What if we got rid of the community and turned it into a section about Trademark, but linked it to other wiki pages that discuss other instances of the same thing happening, like Google (verb).

* Also, the article in which adobe says "don't say photoshopping" in fact sources the essential parts of the section, and the wiki page Photoshop contest has sourced information about community of photoshop editing. What if we just link a mention of community to that page, instead of completely removing it all?

--Ceas webmaster 20:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to having a link in a see also. Otherwise it's completely pointless to the main article. Just some internet kiddies putting around thinking that they are more important than actual information about the world's leading professional software etc. etc. DreamGuy 17:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DreamGuy,

Apparently we have different views on what should be under the Birth of Venus' Popular Culture References section. You keep on deleting Venus Construct and other references and I keep on putting them back and so on. In order to stop this annoying cycle, can we talk civilly on a talk page or something so we can avoid an edit war, because edit wars just waste time.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Psdubow 21:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the mediator of a case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Therianthropy. Would you agree to join the discussion? Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not mediator of a case... To be a mediator of a case, a true mediator has to be accepted by all sides. You appointed yourself a mediator and are trying to claim that your decision can somehow overrule policy and consensus. That's not how Wikipedia works. Also, from past experience, in order for a mediation case to be open all sides EXPLICITLY have to agree to it. You never asked me to agree, you just started it up. Again, that's not Wikipedia works. DreamGuy 19:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove my name, but I just asked everybody. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of mediator do you think you could be when you didn't even read the directions on the mediation page? A case CANNOT be opened without explicit approval from all sides first. I realize it's a volunteer position, but volunteers should at least take the time to try to read the rules. DreamGuy 19:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to even ask to be a mediator in this case, as I can already tell it's going to be problematic. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are still unclear on the rules of how mediation works. You can't "ask" to be mediator anymore, you've already been rejected because you weren't up on the rules enough to even know you had to ask in the first place. You can't be a mediator without at least following the policies. To sit there and now say you don't want to be on it is beside the point, you are completely unqualified for the position and unwanted. DreamGuy 23:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to clarify: you are stating that you refuse to accept mediation/a little outside, uninterested help (which was requested by the other editors, not 'opened by' Cool Blue]]), in your issues with a half dozen other editors on the Therianthropy page, correct? This is not an issue with Cool Blue, but instead, that you have made your decisions about your position on the page, and are not going to change them at all? I would like to clarify this because I took it to MedCab as they are non-binding and friendly, as opposed to other options that seemed unduly harsh, as I don't think there's anyone working on that page who isn't working in good faith. I'd ask you to reconsider this, so that we can all work together on the page instead of at odds. --Thespian 22:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation system here is broken. Any person at all can wander in and call themselves a mediator, even without following the rules or demonstrating fairness, and then take over and try to claim that his opinion is now consensus and policy. This person can't even follow the rules for opening up a case correctly (he called it open, made it live, and did so without getting all sides to approve first -- that's not how the process works at all) so I sure as hell am not going to let him be a mediator, not that I like the fake "mediation cabal" nonsense to begin with. Any mediation without qualified mediators who has to pledge first and foremost to follow policies above all else and who can be accepted by all sides before claiming that they are in charge is not true mediation. Instead of trying to use this nonsensical method that is completely against all Wikipedia standards on such things, we should get a whole group of new people involved. Preferably the people who understand the WP:EL policy, because it's ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that we do not link to crappy, small wiki sites with no reliability and so forth. Anybody who doesn't see that is blindly ignoring a standard that was put together by clear consensus of a large group of long time editors here.

And if you think that there's nobody working on that page who isn;t working under good faith, then you clearly have not seen the Mermaid character's history of wikistalking me and blind reverting all changes I make to all sorts of articles, including ones he never worked on before.

It's not I that have made a decision on the page, the people who put WP:EL together made the decision, I am just enforcing it. And if that means undoing bad choices made by a wikistalker, pro-furry POV-pushers who want a work around for the fact that their bias can;t be in the article itself, and miscellaneous people who don't follow policy, then that's what needs to be done. If you want to "work together," go to the WP:EL page and try to overturn the rules on not linking to minor nonsense wikis. Until then you're clearly in the wrong. Period. No discussion. DreamGuy 23:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy, you have valid concerns about the MedCab. However, if you're worried about "rules" and "process", then the WP:MEDCOM is the next step. By the way, WP:EL is not policy. Sean William @ 02:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not policy, it's just the widely established consensus built by a long line of editors specifically dealing with such topics. Just like gravity is "just" a theory. DreamGuy 05:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Touché. Still, WP:MEDCOM would be a logical next stop in dispute resolution. Sean William @ 05:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You 'enforce' rules. You 'work with' guidelines, and take into account that the *guideline* is full of weasel words, such as 'normally to be avoided'. That does NOT mean 'has to be avoided', 'always needs to be deleted', etc. You have provided no proof beyond a vague sense of WP:IDONTLIKEIT for removing so-called 'competing' wikis (and something on Wikia is *not* competition; I mean, it's one of Wales' projects). You have never once explained why you think it should be removed aside from IT DOESN'T FIT THE RULES (which aren't rules). I'm not, by any means, pro-furry, in point I watch the furry pages to keep them from becoming non-encyclopedic, and having read the site, I believe you to be wrong. So do others, who have posted assessments of the content. You, on the other hand, just keep deleting it according to a guideline that it suits you to declare law, 'not open for discussion'. --Thespian 06:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What fantasy world are you living in where you can't enforce guidelines? You have not given a reason that meets some other WP:EL guideline for including, multiple guidelines say it should be removed, END OF DISCUSSION, unless you'd like to take it upon yourself to try to overturn WP:EL. And good luck on that, because it ain't gonna happen. DreamGuy 19:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I chose to put a "keep" there rather than no consensus because the keep arguments were much stronger. When someone says that X meets a guideline like WP:WEB, it no longer works to just say "X doesn't meet WP:WEB," which is what most of the delete comments were saying. But looking over the debate again, I note that one person did complain that the coverage was mostly incidental, which is a good counterargument. One of the sources is an interview with the site owner about the site.. but that's the only one, and "Redmond Developer News" is less than a stellar source. Will change. I can accept whatever criticism you've written about my previous close, don't sweat it, but feel free to amend or remove your own statements. Mangojuice^talk 02:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did what? You chose to pretend that the votes were to keep when they weren't because you thought the arguments were stronger? That's completely against how admins handling such votes are supposed to operate. You lied about their being a consensus because you favored a side. That's very, very, VERY poor form. DreamGuy 05:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This caught my eye, and I wanted to point out this from WP:AFD#AfD_etiquette - "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. . Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself." This is in fact the correct response for an admin, though not one that is often seen. If there is a 50/50 vote, with one person saying 'Delete because of Xxxxx', and 49 saying, 'Delete per ThatGuy', and 50 people who all present solid reasons to keep, then despite the numbers seeming the same, the Keep argument is stronger. Please note I'm not saying that's what's happening here, just that these are not *votes*, they're comments, and shouldn't be treated as such, and admin decisions, while always arguable, should be argued for other reasons on this front. --Thespian 07:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's got nothing to do with the situation in this AfD... And I don't know why you think I care what someone who is actively ignoring Wikipedia policies and guidelines on another article and harassing me about it thinks about this other situation. DreamGuy 01:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to echo what Thespian said. AfD is not a vote; see WP:DDV. For instance, your striking of the anon user's comment was inappropriate: they made a valid comment (more on point than many of the others), and furthermore, anon users and first-time users are welcome to participate in AfDs, they just have to be taken with a grain of salt if it looks like they might be trying to vote-stack. This way of interpreting debates is essential, because while 10-12 comments may indicate consensus of that microcosm, the policies and guidelines that relate to the issue carry a much stronger consensus on Wikipedia. That said, I didn't pretend that any participants favored keeping when they said they favored deletion, it's just that opinion has to be backed up by a good argument. Mangojuice^talk 13:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry, but you are completely out of touch with how the process works. Labeling votes by anon users with NO EDIT HISTORY (hello, sockpuppet!) is 100% within the way things are SUPPOSED TO BE HANDLED. It's absolutley ridiculous for you to show up with biased opinions and try to skew the results of the vote by ignoring policies. Your ideas of what "good arguments" are are completely at odds with what WP:BIO says. If you aren't familiar with the notability guidelines or how AfDs are conducted you should not be trying to close them. DreamGuy 01:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the point by Adrian that I had missed, every single delete comment were opinions, not arguments: they were all of the form WP:JNN or WP:VAGUEWAVE, including yours. The keep arguments gave perfectly good explanations why the topic should be notable. Striking comments by potential WP:SPAs is not appropriate, though it is appropriate to note that such comments may be from an SPA. I advise you read Template:Not a ballot, WP:ATA, and WP:DDV, before lecturing me on how you think AfD works. Mangojuice^talk 15:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have a problem differentiating between arguments and opinions. Stating that somethign doesn't meet WP:BIO when it has been discussed above already is repeating the same argument and is not an opinion. It appears you have some sort of bias here, or read that awful non-policy essay on what bad votes are and got confused into thinking it wsa policy (many of the arguments on that page are simply wholly incorrect, but it's an essay, so shouldn't matter anyway). If you have this kind of bias you should not participate in any AfDs and leave it to people who follow policy. DreamGuy 19:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass removal; of links against consensus is disruptive editing. If you think policy is being ignored throughout WP, place a RfC. Discontinue, or you will be blocked. DGG 00:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "against consensus" -- the links are prohibited by WP:EL and they've been added as spam to tons of articles. This is just cleaning up, like vandalism patrol. This threat is ridiculous. DreamGuy 01:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So some admin tells me to stop doing something he had no right to tell me, and so I stopped, and the guy STILL blocks me. That sure tells you what his motives are in this instance. DreamGuy 01:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would like to assume good faith, so I hope the admin unblocks me here pretty quickly. DreamGuy 01:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So much for good faith, looks like it was spiteful block, as he isn't responding to an email about it. DreamGuy 01:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He may not have received it yet. I myself don't edit with my email program open at the same time, I only just now received the email you sent to me. I felt it was probably still inappropriate for me to use my admin tools in this since I got involved in the debate directly, but I've left a note on DGG's talk page so hopefully he'll notice it soon. Bryan Derksen 01:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... I am expected to see a message he sends me immediately or else he'll block me, but he can't be bothered to check his own messages an hour later? Right.

You got involved in the debate and disagreed with my side, and were the one who reported me to ANI. It'd be different if you got involved to block me, but if you unblock me it just shows good faith. Come to think of it, DDG might be an admin who had conflicts with me previously -- the name sounds familiar, will have to check my talk page history... In which case he could have been using this as an excuse to block me for a past conflict. DreamGuy 02:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently unblocked for a trial, but will be re-blocked for a longer period if the pattern of editing resumes. DGG 04:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least you're one of the few admins who undid his own mistake instead of having to have another one undo it for you, but the snarky warning is pointless. My pattern of editing is 100% fine, unlike your pattern of blocking people for no reason. DreamGuy 19:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and, marvelous, he claimed to have unblocked me but left the IP address blocked, which just get me reblocked when I tried to edit because I was still on the same IP. Thanks goodness some admin who knew what he was doing came by and fixed it. DreamGuy 19:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that--I must have missed a check box. Are you aware that by peculiar gap in the software there is no way on earth to remove or change edit summaries? this makes it inadvisable to use them for polemic purposes. Just advice about others, because I dont see why we two need have an unfriendly interaction again. DGG 02:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, call me unusual, but I think blocking someone after they had already stopped doing what you warned them to stop doing, especially when what they were doing is not only not a blocking offense but actively encouraged by policies (i.e. spamfighting.... hundreds of links added all over, often with multiple spam links per article, often disguised as Wikipedia links) shows that you had already chose to be unfriendly from the start. It's nice that you apologized for your mistake in the unblock, but not apologizing for the block in the first place and being tricked into giving a fake warning by taking the side of someone in an edit conflict instead of looking at policies would seem to show you are continuing to be unfriendly. If you would like to start being friendly and concerned about following Wikipedia policy, you could start, oh, I don't know, removing the hundreds of instances of spam added to this site that I was trying to put a stop to. For all the people saying editors should be civil and not make personal attacks, admins sure do jump to blocking people really fast, and typically with no policy justification for it. I've been blocked I don't even know how many times now, but all but a handful of them have been admin errors, for which they never apologize even after other admins came in and cleaned up after them. It's a culture of severe incivility, and then they wonder why people don't want to be friendly to them after. DreamGuy 07:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting my edits to the Adobe Photoshop article. If you have problems with what I am doing please notify me now before I cause too much damage. ALTON .ıl 06:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Also, is it necessary to have the retail box pictures in there? It would be much more useful to have GUI screenshots, and those boxes crowd up the page. ALTON .ıl 07:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have problems with your edits overall, just that one line I changed, for the reasons stated. Overall I like your edits. You're probably right on the usefulness of different images there. DreamGuy 19:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Evidence regarding Bigfoot and Formal studies of Bigfoot are not "POV forks", as you called them. They are sub-articles of the main Bigfoot article, split out because the main article was getting far too large. This is standard practice across the project when an article gets too large. Remove the information from the main article, place it in sub articles, and then place small summaries in the main directing people to the sub articles. On many topics this is the only way to prevent the article from getting far, far too big. This is what happened with Bigfoot. With your reversion, the information in the sub-articles, which was prominently in the main article before the split, is no longer in the main article at all. I see that the summaries are now gone from the main article, which is unfortunate, but that does not change the fact that these are sub-articles, not forks.

I also resent your accusations of there being POV involved in this. I did the splits as a totally disinterested party. I watch the Bigfoot pages to revert vandalism, and really have no strong opinion on whether he exists. I saw that the article was getting too big, and split the sections out to streamline it. There was no POV involved in the creation of these sub-articles. - TexasAndroid 14:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to lecture me. I've been editing Bigfoot for a long, long time, and those are clearly POV forks. Perhaps you didn't intend them to be, but that's what they end up being by virtual of giving undue weight to claims of "evidence" and "formal studies" that are overwhelmingly from the pro-Bigfoot side, contrary to the overwhelming view of experts on the topic. And we've discussed this exact situation in the past. DreamGuy 19:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said, in one of the edit summaries "this article is just a POV-fork of the Bigfoot article, so redirecting". That's pretty damning of my actions. "Just". Not other reasons for it existing? My point was that there were other, perfectly valid reasons for why those were split out from the main article. If you don't want people "lecturing" you, then you should not toss out such comments yourself that falsely label their actions.

But moving forward. You have placed merge proposal tags on the two sub-articles. So be it. When you get the discussion started on the main Bigfoot talk page, I will add my reasons opposing the merges, which have to do with the fact that the merged article will, again, be far too large. IMHO, if the sub-articles are broken, then they need fixing. The main article was broken because it was too large. It was fixed. Returning the main article to a broken state because you have problems with the subs is not the right path forward, IMHO. But the actual place to argue this is on the Bigfoot talk page, so just consider this a preview of what I will be arguing there. - TexasAndroid 20:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin above says he unblocked me, but apparently the IP is still blocked. DreamGuy 19:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock lifted. Request handled by: MaxSem 19:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! DreamGuy 19:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent changes to (for example) ConFurence‎, Further Confusion‎ and FurryMUCK‎ - I disagree that WikiFur is an inappropriate external link. WP:EL states that links to wikis are to be avoided, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. I believe WikiFur fulfils these criteria, having over 7,000 articles and a two-year history (wikistats). We also have extensive documentation of these subjects, far in excess of any other site. For the most part, this information is not verifiable - which is why it's not in Wikipedia - but that doesn't mean it's not useful to readers interested in the topic.

I see you have posted about it already, so I will contribute to the discussion there. GreenReaper 20:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you wasting my time posting your opinion here? DreamGuy 20:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for anyone else reading this page, the guy above is not just a concerned editor, he runs Wikifur and got caught as a chronic spammer adding links to it to hundreds of articles despite having to break multiple sets of rules (WP:SPAM, WP:COI, WP:EL) to do so. DreamGuy 07:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to say that the spelling changes to spring healed Jack weren't a mistake, these are genuine American English spellings. It's largely a matter of personal knowledge and preference which are used. If you don't like them I won't interfere. perfectblue 17:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry... The article is clearly about a topic in England, therefore British spelling is always used regardless of the personal preferences of the editors involved. That's a policy here. I am American as well, but I follow the style guide here that everyone is expected to follow. Please return them to British spellings. DreamGuy 19:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...this article is a travesty."

Funny you should use that description...--SarekOfVulcan 19:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cute story. But it has its own article already. That's no reason to remove the notability tag for this article. DreamGuy 19:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, being an author with enough clout to organize a couple of dozen other authors to perform a hoax doesn't indicate that you're notable? Ok, how about publishing one or two books?--SarekOfVulcan 20:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think people were so willing to take on Publish America that clout isn't even an issue, as someone with no background whatsoever could just have easily been the organizing force. And, again, the notability of that project, which has it's own article already, does not confer notability for separate articles for anyone involved.

Publishing one or two books.... maybe. Depends upon sales, influence, etc. If you think you can make a case for it, put it into the article. DreamGuy 17:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is a great edit. It's great to have you contributing at Mermaid; I haven't noticed that POV-sentence before. --Neigel von Teighen 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I normally just look for changes, so it can be easy to miss things, but when that new pointless sentence got added I saw that nearby content had problems too. DreamGuy 17:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You both are in violation of the 3RR rule. I am going to give you a chance to avoid being blocked by asking you not to make any edits to that page for 24 hours and to discuss any further edits on the talk page before making them If you can't come to a conclusion start an RFC to get some outside opinions, do NOT engage in edit wars. — Ocatecir^T 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, the 3RR says "Wikipedians who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours [...]". More than three, not three. So I'm not in violation of it. But I'm used to admins not quite understanding it claiming I am. Sad fact of life here, I guess.

But you already know, as the admin who warned him off, that he was harassing me on my talk page and wasn't listening to reason, so a discussion with him certainly isn't oging to work. Probably would be better to get a row of other editors to revert him anytime he tries to ignore WP:EL again, though. DreamGuy 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above you say:"so a discussion with him certainly isn't oging to work.", I'm missing the reason a discussion with me won't work. I'm not listening to reason? Please list some reasons and then I'll listen to them. I'm the one who wants to have a discussion, it is you who refused to talk to me and kept erasing all my comments off your talk page. In this edit:High IQ Society I give a reference for the material on the link you say is "nonencyclopedic estimates of IQs" and "put in a horribly unreliable one, period" and "not known to be notable". So it is encyclopedic by the reference I cited, but not only that nowhere in WP:EL does it say that external links must be notable or encyclopedic. In fact this is a red herring fallacy argument, the reasons he is saying he is removing the links for are not even part of the policy he is citing. WP:EL#What_to_link says almost the opposite:"Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." This User makes repeated claims like " claim to be following WP:EL is nonsense" and "please go read WP:EL and stop reverting" and " remove links that are not encyclopedic. reliable, etc. see WP:EL" but apparently he himself has never read it. When I asked for clarification before here he erased all comments, so I think it is him who will not have a discussion.Tstrobaugh 14:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering does not get one out of violations of edit warring. And what you did above is exactly wikilawyering. Instead of quoting the specific language of the policy, you should be responding to the intent of the policy. Were you engaging in edit-warring or not? Do you see the point in cooling off periods, even if you feel you are in the right? Do you see the point in convincing other Wikipedians that you were in the right? Or do you think it is a more effective strategy to tell others that you understand how Wikipedia works better than they do? Just some thoughts to consider. --The Cunctator 04:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, an RFC might be the best way to find resolution for this. — Ocatecir^T 04:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. From this comment and the one below you sound like you are trying to claim nobody can know how anything works better than anything else and that it's wrong to claim otherwise. It should be common sense that some people know better than others how things work, and obviously it's more likely when they take the time and effort to do so. If people are wrong, it should be pointed out to them so they can learn from it... especially admins trying to enforce rules. That should be a no brainer, but if you'd rather be offended that I dared to point out someone was wrong, I guess that's your right.

You talk about the presumed intent of the 3RR policy but are missing the intent of an encyclopedia. There are too many people running around acting all offended and putting up red tape instead of doing what it takes to make an encyclopedia: a real encyclopedia, and not just some website full of trivia, spam, and talk pages. DreamGuy 05:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did I write that made you believe I was offended? If you're willing, I'd love for you to directly respond to any of the questions I posed. I asked four specific questions above, and you didn't respond to any of them. Yours, The Cunctator 17:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is an egregious violation of WP:CIVIL. Please do not make this kind of comment in the future. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping that you didn't see my note on your Talk: page before you made this comment. Please stop posting about other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again. Pointing out that Elonka has, in fact, wikistalked me and did in fact get caught having sockpuppets voting on her request for adminship and so forth and so on is not a violation of WP:CIVIL. The only potentially problematic point there was calling someone a moron for trying to label me a bad editor because of a couple of failed RFCs from several years ago in which the main complainers have since been permanently banned for abusing Wikipedia policies on POV-pushing, harassment, etc. I do think trying to make a case that someone's edits should be opposed because of the complaints of some now banned proven problem editors is pretty moronic. I suppose I should have used "harassing, deceptive and pointless" instead. Thanks, I'll remember that.

By the way, does Elonka regularly complain to you whenever someone points out that she's a problem editor? I seem to remember you doing that on a regular basis. Or am I in error there?

Funny, I also did not see you post a warning to Elonka about HER incivility. Looks like you aren't even trying to hide your bias. DreamGuy 00:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did Elonka call you a "moron"? Were there proven sockpuppet votes on her RFA? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She has called me far worse, and you saw some of her uncivil comments recently (or should have, anyway, as you managed to see my comments and freak out over them and thus should have seen hers also). And, yes, there were proven sockpuppet votes on her RFA. You can't try to call my pointing that fact out as uncivil when I only pointed it out after she falsely accused me of using a sockpuppet on an account that anyone with any sense would know is not a sockpuppet by any stretch of the imagination. DreamGuy 04:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "The bad thing about Wikipedia is all the people who want things to be wrong (either from bias or cluelessness) outnumber the rest." Do you have any evidence for that? It seems pretty clear to me that that vast majority of contributions and contributors to Wikipedia are both well-intentioned and at least moderately helpful. Assuming bad faith generally leads to frustration and ill will. --The Cunctator 04:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not assuming bad faith, it's recognizing that all the good faith in the world alone doesn't turn someone into a good encyclopedia author or editor. We could make a WikiMedicine and people around the world aren't going to become doctors and pharmacists just because they have good intentions.

And, on top of that, like anything on the Internet, the people who want to abuse it flock to it to exploit it to their own devices in much greater percentages that the average public. That's not bad faith, that's common sense, and pretty obvious once you've looked at more than a handful of articles. DreamGuy 04:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's common sense, do you have any *actual evidence* for your claim I quoted above? --The Cunctator 17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who has edited more than a couple of pages here has all the evidence they could ever hope for to show that. DreamGuy 18:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work catching the White43- spammer, btw. That use of the trailing hyphen is a interesting sploit. --The Cunctator 04:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's an example of experience trumping mere good intentions, by the way. DreamGuy 04:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that good intentions are in opposition to experience? Or did you mean "That's an example of experience combined with good intentions."? --The Cunctator 17:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an example of how all the good intentions in the world don't mean anything without the knowledge to figure out what needs to be done. And, oh, gosh, there's a good example of someone operating in bad faith.

You have no reason to post on my talk page other than to try to chastise me and not be able read clear sentences for understanding. I don't need to convince you of anything. I don't need to show you any evidence, especially when the evidence is right in front of your face. Please go away and don't come back unless you have something important to say. DreamGuy 18:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful message. I wanted to reply via message as well but I seem unable to do so...thus I have replied here. I now agree that your version of the first section is better. I had wanted to do an edit which makes clear what it means to say Quine's sentence is "paradoxical," viz., that it can be proven both true and false. I also wanted to sketch the proof, and make clear that, although the Quine-sentence itself is not self-referring, it has a predicate which is self-referring. But all this is probably too much for Wikipedian purposes.

Similarly, I may have gone into too much detail in the second section. However, I have revised your version of that section in two ways. First, if you look in Quine (1961), his initial opponent is not someone who wants to eliminate self-reference from the object-language. (Although he also discusses this Tarskian strategy later in the paper, that is not his first concern.) Rather, the opponent is someone who believes there is a very straightforward solution to the Liar.

In particular, the opponent thinks we can replace the demonstrative-phrase 'this sentence' with a name for the sentence demonstrated--and get a sentence which is equivalent to the Liar. (After all, such a name and the demonstrative phrase would be co-referring, and plus, the language is assumed to be extensional.) With 'This sentence is false,' the result of such a replacement is ' 'This sentence is false' is false.' But the opponent says this latter sentence is NOT paradoxical--that's because the second sentence is not talking about the second sentence. Rather, the second sentence is talking about the Liar. But if the second sentence is not paradoxical, then neither is the Liar--for these sentences are supposed to be equivalent.

Actually, I think the second sentence is just as paradoxical as the Liar. But Quine's reply is to say that, even if the opponent's view is correct, we still have not purged the object-language of all paradox. And thus, he gives us the Quine-paradox.

My final edit (besides the bibliography) was to delete the clause saying that Quine's sentence demonstrates "the problem is intrinsic to the notion of sentences that discuss truth and falsity." But it was Tarski, a predecessor of Quine, who demonstrated that truth/falsity gives rise to the paradoxes. Nonetheless, neither Quine's argument nor Tarski's shows that *any* language which contains 'true' and 'false' will be paradoxical. Indeed, a Tarskian metalanguage is precisely a non-paradoxical language that contains 'true' and 'false.'

Thanks again for your concern, Ted.

Hi Ted,

Well, just wanted to try to get the edits more in line with policies on citing sources and being written like an article instead of an opinion piece. Now that you've seen the policies I'll trust you to go revise the edits and then have the editors there look it over as time permits.

(By the way, you can sign your comments by entering four of the ~ symbols at the end of your message, which in my case turns out like this:

DreamGuy 18:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]