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 This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current.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

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)

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)

I tagged the article you kept linking to as nonnotable spam to be deleted, other people can discuss it as a group. DreamGuy 18:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Photoshop

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)

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)

English version

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)

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)

James D. Macdonald

"...this article is a travesty."

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

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)

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)

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)

Great edit!

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)

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)

Quine's paradox

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)