Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:38, 10 October 2005

I periodically go through and clean out the old comments... This is because they refer to old situations or that the comments are otherwise no longer relevant. 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 Misplaced Pages policy which you should have read in the first place.

Otherwise please add new comments below.

Arbitration accepted

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy has been accepted. Due to the length of your original statement it has been placed on the talk page. If you wish, make a short statement at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy. Please place evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy/Evidence. Fred Bauder 21:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

A message from a spammer

a You are no dream, you are a nightmare. (unsigned, but by User:131.247.118.130)

Stop spamming the encyclopedia with links to commercial websites and I'll stop removing the links. DreamGuy 21:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with everything you do. I hate you. (unsigned, but by User:131.247.118.130)

Be prepared for obnoxious vandalism in the near future. (unsigned, but by User:131.247.118.130)

Freemasonry

I believe you were referring to me when you reverted due to your belief that my account is a "sock puppet" account. Even if my account were a "sock puppet" account, it's asinine to blindly revert an article chalked full of numerous grammatical and spelling corrections back to an error laden article solely on your belief that my account is fraudulent. I suggest that you look these corrections up and make them yourself. You may even fix some that I had missed. Both the community and you will be better for it. Nobes 22:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not referring to you at all, and I can;t see how you'd possibly think that based upon the edit history. I was referring to User:Squaredeal, who appeared out of nowhere in the last day or two to go through all the Freemasonry and Jack the Ripper articles adding info claiming Freemasons were involved in Satanism, the Ripper murders, etc. that happened to be the exact same additions that User:Lightbringer added to most of those articles. He was making highly POV edits to mutliple articles and I checked most all of the changes of all of the articles, but it looks like some extra edits got tied up on the Freemasonry page. I don't see any with "numerous grammatical and spelling corrections" though, just a few that changed British English spellings to American English spellings in violation of the English usage standards here (articles linked to a country use the English used in that country, otherwise you use the English that was the default one already used in the article). The community and you would be better off keeping track of edits by accounts who are only there to add propaganda and not to assume that I am accusing you of anything when I don't even see your edits on the page in question except much farther down. DreamGuy 23:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm still pretty new to WP, so I guess my inexperience helped lead to my conclusion that I was the sock puppet. By fault of my own, the only changes I saw, primarily, were every spelling and grammar corrections I made changed back to the old, incorrect version. That's modeled here.. The red words and punctuation are mostly the corrections I made ('much farther down', as you noted, yes), with a few exceptions. Hope this clears it up and states my concern objectively. Nobes 00:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Rmmm, crap... there were so many edits in there that lots of things got screwed up. When the anti-Mason sockpuppet (Squaredeal aka Lightbringer) reverted to an old version he got to one with your spelling fixes but not my spelling fixes and with essential info about the listed links removed... there's no good way to restore partially once edits are messed like that. Both of ours got messed up quite severely over the history. There's nothing really to do about it except try to spot them and fix them by hand. Those two jump in a revert back to their own versions from days back and lose all the changes, and then if any changes are made after that you can;t restore to the good old version without killing off recent good changes. This is going to suck to try to fix. The main thing I can recommend is just completely undoing any edits by Squaredeal or Lightbringer before anyone else gets a chance to edit on top of those bad edits. Ugh, what a headache. DreamGuy 00:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for laying it out for a newbie. Nobes 00:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Afrocentrism

That was 4, SqueakBox 21:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it was. It does not matter who is right, it is wrong to revert. Think over that fact for 24 hours. -Splash 22:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

No, actually, it wasn't... The form was not filled out correctly, and the link to the "reverted to version" was not a version I reverted to at all. I added a tag, the first edit there that was listed as a "revert" was not a revert but an initial change. I changed, then reverted three times, I did not revert four times. You should check those reports more closely. Now you should unblock me immediately, and avoid making such mistakes in the future. DreamGuy 23:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Your edit summary in the first edit says "restoring", not "adding". However, I don't see the diff where it was deleted, so I don't know. You are right that the link to the "version reverted to" isn't what you reverted to. ~~ N (t/c) 23:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Your three sterile reverts are , and . However, your first relevant edit, as listed on AN/3, was overwhelmingly principally to restore the tag that was previously removed (you admit as much in your own edit summary); it is a single action identical in effect to your later ones. Revert warring is harmful in whatever manner it is conducted as I'm sure you'll agree, and I will not condone its continuance by allowing editors to barely slip around the hard rules that govern it. If it is any consolation, I have also blocked User:Deeceevoice for the same reason. -Splash 23:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. Of course the four edits were the same effect, but the first was not a revert. You can't just switch it to a 2RR when you feel like it. It's not barely slipping around any rules, it's following the rules period. It's not a consolation that Deeceevoice was also blocked because I should not be blocked at all. The person who filed it admits it's a mistake, and others do as well, do not let your need to justify yourself get in the way of doing your job here. DreamGuy 23:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it looks like I made a mistake. For which I apologise, SqueakBox 23:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep, the first diff is irrelevant. I do see four diffs in which you say you're restoring the NPOV tag. Whether you've violated the letter of the 3RR or not, you've certainly violated the spirit of it. If you follow the one revert rule there will never be any question. Friday (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, no... You can't block for your own personal idea of the "spirit" of the rule. There is no question now, as there was no violation. DreamGuy 23:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yaknow, between this time and the last time I was blocked (also for a 3RR that was not a 3RR) I've got several hours of improper blocks saved up... If I ever do actually violate the 3RR I hope I only get blocked for 20 hours or whatever it should turn out to be. Still waiting for the admin in question to admit to not checking the report and making a mistake instead of just trying to cover up his error. DreamGuy 23:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The admin in question was having something to eat, and apologises for that fact.

I have already said that I will not condone edit warring by allowing editors to slip around the rules, and I continue to think that this manner of editing does precisely that. Your first edit was close enough to a revert for the difference to all-but vanish. I have an alternative offer, however, two in fact:

1. Your edit warring is disruptive and unnecessary. It is being done with no discussion (until now, note, so the block has already achieved something). It is being carried out at a high rate. I think a 48 hour block would help in that case to preserve the equanimity the editing of the article; or
2. You can, as it says over at WP:3RR acknowledge the error of your ways, promise you will stop the reverts, or other complex edits to force the tag in, and I will unblock you.

Or, you can sit out the 24 hours calmly because this is just a website and the article will still be there tomorrow. -Splash 23:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but those threats are absolutely reprehensible behavior. I do not take kindly to admins abusing their powers and threatening worse blocks in situations where they are only trying to cover up their incompetence. How about YOU acknowledge the error of YOUR ways and apologize for your highly inappropriate tactics? DreamGuy 03:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

In response to my note at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:DreamGuy and on his talk page, Splash tells me the discussion is taking place here. As I said, this doesn't look like a 3RR violation, Splash, though it would probably be better to discuss it on WP:AN/3RR in case other admins want to comment. SlimVirgin 00:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked you, thanks to SlimVirgin's comment at your 3RR. I will assume that your first edit summary of "restoring" is indeed a mistake. Please don't actually break it now. ~~ N (t/c) 00:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I presume I can go to bed now, then? -Splash 00:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

For the record, however, I think that my option 2 would have been the better way to proceed by far, Nickptar. There is no excuse for conding an edit war, however it is being conducted. -Splash 00:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. However, Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy says absolutely nothing about blocking for violating the "spirit" of the 3RR or edit-warring, so letting him stay blocked would be against policy. If he actually violates 3RR he can be reblocked. I think these few hours have likely given him some time to cool it. ~~ N (t/c) 00:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, being threatened with a 48 hour block if I didn't suck up to an admin abusing his powers absolutely does not cool me off. Splash was WAYYYYYY beyond any reasonable behavior there. The initial error he could just plead ignorance on, but the additional threats after that are completely unacceptable. It's relly too bad there isn't a practical way to discipline people like that.

But, at any rate, I do thank the admins who did step in to correct this problem, which helps a lot in preventing me from thinking that it's just accepted practice here. I've seen a number of admins make highly questionable decisions in the past, or take what appear to be vendetta-based actions way out of line with what is reasonable for the situation, but it's nice to see a group of them admit to errors and taking action to resolve it. DreamGuy 03:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was late to the game - I did not see your e-mail until I arrived at the office. I see the matter has been resolved. --khaosworks (talk • contribs)

Since two other admins have disagreed with me, I was evidently wrong. For that, I owe you an apology: I'm sorry. However, edit-warring of any kind is one of the worst forms of non-vandal conduct on Wiki and does damage to all involved as well to as to Wiki's image. So, if you should breach the 3RR, I will block you in a flash. So don't do it. I am aware that others are warring over Afrocentrism tags (tags! for goodness' sake, tags!) as well. And I'm watching them, too. -Splash 03:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted, though I'd be more happy if you apologized for your completely out of line threats to extend the improper ban for no reason other than I dared to point out your error.

Regarding your little sermon at the end... While it'd be nice if edit warring were not necessary, unfortunately it is sometimes quite vital to the health of this project. To claim otherwise while the integrity of the encyclopedia is constantly under attack by people trying to use it to push their agendas comes off as quite naive. When you have editors who refuse to follow policies or discuss anything objectively and who restore to their own versions instantly, it's impossible to just say edit warring shouldn't be done, as that just means the bad guys would always win by default. It's far, far worse to constantly have atrocious content up while people like you sit on your hands and preach goodness and light while the actual encyclopedia goes to hell. Even getting a tag on the incredibly messed up article in question is a major victory, as otherwise people coming across it will think it's an objective article when that couldn't be further from the truth. DreamGuy 07:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

"Spam"

Please be careful in describing things as "spam". The word is a bit like "vandalism", some people get offended by it. (What I noticed was Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Gorilla_Operation). To me this article looks like a good faith effort, so I'd hate to see the author get upset at it being referred to as "spam". Friday (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Lycanthropy

I've lightly modified the text of Otherkin, to better reflect the distinction between a psychiatric illness and a spiritual belief (analogy - the distinction between the symbolic cannibalism of Catholicism, and actual cannibalism). It can be argued that everyone who has spiritual beliefs is mentally ill in one way or another - was Joan of Arc schizophrenic, for instance? - but that's an issue in and of itself. The dividing line, I believe, is how well the believer is able to function. Otherkin don't pee on things to mark territory, and lycanthropes don't like to speak.

Sound good? DS 19:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

What you wrote above didn;t sound so bad, but what you put into the actual article was atrocious. It was an unsourced POV, which violates NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR all at once. Please don't put your personal interpretations into articles as if they were factual. I would agree that the difference is one of who well someone fuctions, but that comes up for an individual diagnosis from a mental health official, not just assuming none of these people have it. A long time back I tried to put in the article that the difference could only be established by determining how the belief interferes with normal life and diagnosis on a case by case basis, but that was removed by POV pushers who want to try to claim that none of these people have any sort of problem whatsoever. From your statement above it shounds like you want to restore one of the old versions I had. DreamGuy 22:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

GS, et al

Please just pretend he doesn't exist and let the others take care of him. I'm not an admin. I won't be enforcing but I do watch. I have no disagreements with you, but it would just make it easier. I think people (myself included) reflexively throw up our hands when we see the two of you start the he said/he said thing. As is always the case with unsolicited advice, feel free to ignore it. Wikibofh 23:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this might help, as you seem to set him off (which is not, I hasten to say, your fault), but you don't have to. BTW, the ruling says nothing about doubling - it says that any 3 admins who agree that there's a severe maturity problem may block for up to one month. ~~ N (t/c) 00:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm about ready to do that. His reverting last night, not only at Otherkin, shows he's learned nothing, and the spelling mistakes and typos continue, which is bad enough, but he actually reverted someone who'd corrected them. Then the usual denials, and the cursing in the e-mails. This isn't a nursery school. SlimVirgin 00:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

My fault on the doubling. I see there was a two month ban option for returning during the ban with a sockpuppet or anonymous account. I think they discussed a double of the ban for repeated refractions but went for the lesser option, or I could just be confusing it with the sockpuppet rule. DreamGuy 06:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've sent you an email. I'd like to have a look at the emails from GS as well, if you don't mind. android79 02:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I got them. I remember seeing the email address he used before, do you know if he posted this somewhere on the Wiki at some point? android79 03:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he posted it on one of his many talk pages at one point... if not, he has emailed SlimVirgin in the past, so she would be able to confirm. DreamGuy 07:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Page move

Hello. Given your past interest in a similar page move, could you take a look at Talk:Höðr and comment on moving that Norse deity to a name more familiar to English readers? Jonathunder 02:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. DreamGuy 04:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about before

☺Adam1213☺|talk 02:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I've been watching your name pop up on the Freya article as reverting to a sane, not-sourced-to-not-quite-fiction version. Since someone of Victorian rather than Norse/Medieval values seems to be bent on sanitizing the article repeatedly, I thank you for your efforts. Yes, someone appreciates them. --Esthanya 08:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome. I do what I can here and there. DreamGuy 08:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

REMEMBER

WHEN I TOLD YOU TO BE PREPARED FOR OBNOXIOUS VANDALISM - I HATE YOU FUCKWOD, NightmareGuy 18:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)