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 This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current.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

External links on Abalone (game)

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)

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)

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)

Mediation

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)

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)

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]}

Cold iron

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Userpage / talkpage confusion

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)

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)

External wikis

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

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

I don't understand your edit...

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)

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)

About external linkboxes

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)

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)

{{PUIdisputed}}

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)

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

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

Sockpuppet query

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)

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)

photoshopping

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)

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)

Venus Construct and Other Popular Culture References

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)