Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:33, 2 February 2009

I periodically go through and clean out the old comments... This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current. Those looking for archives are invited to refer to the history.

If you have a demonstrated history of personal harassment on these pages, your posts are not welcome here. (This includes certain admins who seem more interested in breaking policies than enforcing them.) You should know who you are. If you do post, your comments will be removed, most likely unread. If there's any chance that you might not know that your behavior is considered harassment, I will tell you, and from that point on you will not be allowed to post here. To anyone who doesn't know what I am referring to here, this warning does not apply to you, so by all means leave a message.

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

Gene Fallaize

Dear 'DreamGuy'. Please accept my apologies, but I am the publicist for Cupsogue Pictures and it's productions, and part of my job is to ensure documents on Misplaced Pages correctly relate to our company and it's productions and staff. The company recently donated to keep Misplaced Pages going after the message from your COO, and I feel very disappointed that you have taken it upon yourself to remove documents relating to us, especially when we have been a part of keeping it going. I also notice that you have removed the Cupsogue Pictures CEO Gene Fallaize's page on wiki that has been updated by people other than myself, which I feel is unfair. You also removed a portion about our award winning film. I would like to invite you to look into the film industry a little more and you will discover that a trailer is part of the film, and any awards a given trailer wins are deemed awards for that film. As for it's accuracy, you should check these before you delete them. Plenty information can be found of the film winning the award. If you want to discuss this further with me, please do, but if you reinstate the page of our CEO I will ensure we only update things when needed in a non-commercial sense. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahampitt (talk • contribs) 15:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Happening to see this, I left a comment (and warning) on the above editors user page. DGG (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Bloody Mary (folklore)

I'll keep an eye on it. I initially let it go because (a) I was tired of dealing with it, and (b) one of the sources he removed, the Hutton book, doesn't actually comment on Bloody Mary in the context of the folk magic it discusses. I was planning on finding something that connected Bloody Mary to the broader divination ritual/game but I got busy doing other things. I'll continue to keep an eye on the page, I think it's clearly superior now, if incompletely sourced.--Cúchullain /c 00:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Face in the Mirror essay already used as a ref in the article explicitly links the old Halloween rituals to see who the girl who did them would marry with Bloody Mary... but that site appears to be down now. It was up yesterday when I checked the refs when I reverted the page, so it's probably temporary. DreamGuy (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ambigram edits

Just saw your comments on my talk page. Wow! Do I disagree with most of your recent edits. I don't mean this to be insulting, but do you know anything about ambigrams? It looks like you went in helter-skelter and wreaked havoc on the article. Bear in mind that, although I made some recent changes, I didn't write the vast majority of the text that you attacked, parts of which have been in that page for years.

BTW, I'm not new to Misplaced Pages. I've been a user and an editor for a long time. Rather than use the account I normally use, I chose to create a new account with my real name for my recent edits because I wanted to make it clear that the creation of the FlipScript page, which references a company, was not being made by somebody associated with the company. I figured using my real name was the best way to make that clear. Maybe that was a mistake because my edit history made me look like a newbie instead.

Rather than just undo your changes, I'll run through your edits. I'll note the change I plan to make to address it. You can object here if you want, but I'd like to know why you're more right than I am. And, please, I already wasted enough time going through this -- let's make it easy. You can reply here (I'll watch the page)

1. "ambigram" in the NPL -- this fact has been on the page for a long time and was recently edited (larger block of text moved from intro at top to a separate section at the bottom). It can easily be verified with a visit to the NPL web site, puzzlers.org. Not every single fact on Misplaced Pages needs a footnote. In this case, I think a note on the talk page would have been more appropriate. ⇒ Remove

2. "independent inventors"; Loewy's ambigram --note use of word "considered". Each of these people (Kim, Langdon, Petrick) claim to be an inventor and each is an acknowledged pioneer. Easily verified from multiple sources. No other ambigram by Loewy, or any of the other early ambigramists is known to exist. ⇒ Remove and . There may be better ways to state these facts and I have no problem with that. Independently of this, I've been working on a timeline of the history of ambigrams

3. Homage to John Langdon. Brown is the authority: "As a tribute to John Langdon, I named the protagonist Robert Langdon." Good enough? I have seen this in many places, both from Dan Brown and John Langdon. Do you really have to question everything?! I found this reference in 5 seconds by searching for (langdon homage john robert "dan brown"). It was the second link, after Misplaced Pages. http://www.popularculture.it/museo_virtuale/pagine/dan_brown.html (Skip down to the English footnotes) ⇒ Restore and add reference even though it's an Italian page

3. "Monkeyshine" - why remove? It's topical and interesting, about a movie that's soon to be released. I didn't stick that in but see no reason why it should be removed. There are probably links to 10,000 movies on Misplaced Pages and most of them don't have Misplaced Pages pages. On IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1332027/ ⇒ Restore (would be nice if we could see the ambigram)

4. Justin Thyme, etc. Editors of this page in the past have complained about ambigrams that were mentioned but could not be seen (see talk page). I would put all the links you removed back and I'd love to find links for all the ones that don't currently have links. Misplaced Pages's spam rules do not say you can't link to a page that sells something -- it says you should normally avoid linking to a site that primarily exists to sell things. However, when the purpose of the link is to provide information, not to sell something, a link is OK. Would you say we can't link to apple.com because they sell things? (and that's certainly the primary purpose of apple.com) I do agree that the http://www.johnlangdon.net/forsale.html page shouldn't be linked to because an image of the book cover is already on Misplaced Pages, on the John Langdon page, so we can just link there. ⇒ Fix

5. Why remove Mosuki? ⇒ Restore

6. Link to Langdon's advice. This very useful page has been linked to for some time, at the bottom of the page. I simply moved it into the Creating Ambigrams section when I created it. Why remove it? As an ambigramist, I am constantly ask how I do it. This page is the best available page online with this information. I considered adding some information on creating ambigrams to Misplaced Pages, but decided (a) John wrote it better than I would, (b) nothing written by multiple people would be good, (c) nothing written by a single person would be universally useful, and (d) tutorials don't belong on Misplaced Pages. ⇒ Restore

7. "... today by some people." You made it less true. The term is only used by people who do not know the term ambigram. Those who know the term, even Scott Kim, who coined the term inversion, use the term ambigram. ⇒ Open to alternate phrasing, but prefer accuracy over vagueness

8. Other name: FlipScript. Why remove? Formerly, somebody (probably from the company) argued that it was a synonym for ambigram, so it should be mentioned in the first paragraph. Clearly not true today, but the company is promoting it and I think it's relevant. ⇒ Restore

9. "Nonetheless, it is a significant advance in automated creation of ambigrams." Why remove? It's accurate. Statements like this are all over Misplaced Pages. "significant advance" gets 96 hits on Misplaced Pages, with pretty much the same usage as here. ⇒ Restore in some way

10. NPL ambigram example. Why remove? This is a real example from the NPL and illustrates the point well. Is it because it references Ann Coulter? ⇒ Restore

11. Why remove Ambiscript? I learned about it from this page and thought it was interesting. I agree the image is out of place (and overly prominent). ⇒ Replace with reference in text and link to site, don't even think linking to the picture is necessary since it's on the site

12. Life/Death tattoo - hey, an edit I mostly agree with. I don't know anything about tattoos, but, if this is a true statement, it might be worth mentioning. Whoever put it in the first place obviously thought it was true. This page http://www.wowtattoos.com/populartattoodesigns.html says Life/Death is one of their most popular. Searching for ("life death" tattoo) gets an astonishing 55,100 pages. ("life death" ambigram tattoo) gets 1,220. I see no reason for the "rate my tattoo" link. I don't know if Mark Palmer is, in fact, the leading ambigram tattoo artist, but nobody else is claiming that :-) ⇒ Not sure -- maybe put back in with a tag?

13. Why did you take a valid link to the ambigramatic generator and replace it with a link to a non-existent page on Misplaced Pages?! For people wanting to create their own ambigrams, it is useful to see it (even though it was awful in terms of quality). On the OR tag, it's a generally accepted fact. You can see this mentioned in places such as Polster's book. It was a curiosity, not a serious attempt at creating ambigrams. Try it yourself! Polster spent several pages discussing this generator. Perhaps should say "it's generally accepted" to be NPOV. ⇒ Restore/fix

On the rest of your edits, particularly those to links, you really seem to like removing stuff. Why?

FlipScript is very interesting. Yes, they sell things. Flickr Ambigram pool is both interesting and useful to people who want to know more about ambigrams. Ambigrams are (surprisingly!) very popular as tattoos. This site (which is a commercial site) is the site with the most. What's wrong with Ambigramania? Again, links like this are to be avoided, but this site is devoted solely to ambigrams, so a link is appropriate. Look at the examples on WP:EL to see what is not wanted.

RoyLeban (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"I don't mean this to be insulting, but do you know anything about ambigrams?" Yes. I do. (I'm a member of NPL just like you are and so forth and so on.) The more important question is do you know anything about Misplaced Pages? Most of the arguments above make no sense according to our policies. And that post doesn't belong on my talk page, it belongs on the talk page of the article, where it can be discussed any editor who comes along. I am not going to bother wasting with a point by point response here, but the types of arguments you are making would basically excuse pretty much any content in any article. We have rules to follow, quality control, and aren't here just to link to places for people to socialize and buy stuff.DreamGuy (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right about one thing -- yes, it should have gone on the talk page. But then why did you go to my talk page to question an easily verifiable fact? I'm not going to trade insults with you about following Misplaced Pages guidelines (they're not policies), but I'll ask you a few questions:

What does membership in the NPL have to do with ambigrams? You know the NPL has nothing to do with ambigrams, other than using the word for something completely different.

You're a member of the NPL, but you put a tag on something which has been in this article for more than a year, which you know to be true, and for which a citation can be found in seconds with a simple search on the NPL web site. Or you could have just linked to puzzlers.org and left it at that. You also remove an example, which you also know to be real, with no explanation. The example helps people understand what an NPL ambigram is, which is the point of that section. I think that example is particularly good because of the controversy around it. Do you have a better one to suggest? I can think of CARTOONS -> NO ACTORS (one of mine), but it's not as clear that it's an ambigram.

Why did you question the statement about Robert Langdon being a homage, a widely known fact, which has also been in the article for ages, and which was also easily verifiable in seconds?

Why did you remove numerous links to ambigrams without looking at the edit history of and discussions about this page? If you had been familiar with it, you would have known the consensus was to link to places where people could see ambigrams mentioned and that is hardly against Misplaced Pages guidelines. Why didn't you remove the link to dollop, a sales page for the product, which happens to show the ambigram?

You have me at a disadvantage as I chose to use my real name for these edits (a mistake I'll try not to make again), so you know who I am. I don't know who you are.

RoyLeban (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Your thinly veiled threats only serve to remind me that I am in the right. I don't know how you think my revert was "blind," I knew that every following edit ws only deleting material that complied with Wiki policy. Do you know how I know this? Because the material is completely unconstested. Saying something violates WP:NOR doesn't make it violate WP:NOR. Telling me to read the policy that I have been quoting through the entire debate demonstrates to me that you have nothing to say in defense of your position, which is not surprising. It is an indefensible position because it is wrong. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 10:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's all you got out of you recent block and all the well respected editors telling you you are wrong, then you have not learned a thing. The material is certainly contested and clearly inappropriate by our policies. The fact that you go around in circles trying to claim otherwise doesn't mean you are right, just that you are ignorant of our policies and stubbornly refusing to listen to anyone with more experience than yourself. DreamGuy (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined - Splatstick

I have declined the speedy deletion of this page, as it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. The most relevant criteria, R3 - or unlikely redirect - does not apply, as the word appears to have sufficient usage in this context to warrant a redirect. Thanks, Ale_Jrb 21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Snakes And Ladders

I've submitted a rebuttal to your brusque reply to my original post. If you'd like to treat this as a rational debate instead or making inflamatory comments (i.e. tantrum), I'd appreciate your input and opinion. Talk:Snakes_and_ladders#Specific_Editions smnc (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying that something had to be the way you want it (advertising of an nonnotable product) or else the whole section neds to be removed completely was already inflammatory. If you don't get something as straightforward as that I don't know how to put it any other way. DreamGuy (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Twelve Monkeys

I have re-added a cut-down version of the plot summary of Twelve Monkeys, as there did not seem to be consensus on the talk page for such a drastic change, and your version was not a effective summary of the movie's plot. If you can cut down any other unnecessary details from the plot, go ahead. --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 02:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

various mergers etc. - ghost and assocoaited topics

Given you contributed alot early on to ghost, you may have an opirion on some proposed merges etc. Scroll down from Talk:Ghost#Merger_proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit of the Near Dark article.

Dreamguy - I agree with you that the summary is too long, however WP:NOT suggests that plot summaries written in a concise fashion. Concise it not simply a synonym for short. Please consider taking the time to edit the current information into a brief but informative plot summary. I'll be happy to assist if you like. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

First off, WP:NOT specifically forbids point by point detailed summaries of entire works. Second off, I know what "concise" means (even without your broken link above), and the version I left is appropriately concise for as much as any plot summary needs to be in Misplaced Pages. Third, it's not like we even need to have any plot summary at all, so why you think that one that you don't think is appropriate means you must revert to one you must know is totally inappropriate if you bothered to look at the policy I pointed you to makes any sense whatsoever. Fourth, it's pretty ridiculous for you to show up acting like you know everything and assuming that I must be a newbie ("welcome to Misplaced Pages") when I've edited this site several years before you ever got here and am the one actually following policies. The only "assistance" you can give me is to do what you are supposed to be doing. If you'd like to make a better plot summary that is concise, DO SO, but until then either keep it as I edited it or remove it entirely if you must, but we will WP:NOT have the point by point plot summary there. Period. If you have a problem with this, go get WP:NOT changed... or try to anyway -- good luck on that. DreamGuy (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

social marketing

see my comments in the edit summary there. I suggest AfD. The way to check is the deletion log, which will catch it if the exact same title is used, as was the case here DGG (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

ResearchEditor is sockpuppeting

Hi DG,

You may be interested to know that ResearchEditor, formerly AbuseTruth, has been sockpuppeting A LOT, adding the same dubious, bullshit, POV information to pet articles using a series of throwaway accounts. I'm running regular searches on specific terms and sources to see if new stuff has been added, and they crop up pretty regularly. Bottca is almost certainly one of them (which you've seen), and when I get around to it, I'll put together another report at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ResearchEditor. Blatant changes that completely duplicate previous socking, you may be able to simply report to Tiptoety. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Near Dark. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)