Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:17, 11 January 2008

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 This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current.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

No baiting zone

I am watching this page. If you are one of the small number of editors who User:DreamGuy has previously asked not to post here, please respect his wishes. If you need to resolve a problem, feel free to ask me or another administrator for help, or use one of our friendly dispute resolution mechanisms. Thank you. - Jehochman 20:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy and i have had issues in the past. He has not requested my absence here, and, as you can see, my post below is of a conciliatory nature. --DashaKat 12:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with that. Conciliation is a good thing. Happy editing. - Jehochman 13:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, his claim that I have not requested his absence here is false... In fact he was specifically told never to post here again by myself and also one or two admins previously. Of course I have no problems with him wanting to start fresh. DreamGuy 15:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't recall either of those situations, but whatever. --DashaKat 20:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Information

I am trying to get a link to a site that deals with real life stories of MPD not just clinical studies or "this Dr. said that his patient" type of writings.

Is there no way to get a link to a very valid site that tells the true story of MPD and not some sensationalism type of article, only?

Please let me know. I'm trying to get the word out that you can live with MPD and I was recently featured on a show for this very reason. How else can I let others know?

Every article always goes to the extreme cases and it would be nice if Wiki would reference real life situations, not just clicnical theories of DID or someone else telling the story for a multiple.

Ty for the information,

Cat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscateyes (talk • contribs) 04:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI for how to handle suggesting links to sites you are affiliated with, as well as WP:EL and WP:SPAM for the kinds of sites we would and would not link to in the first place. I think it'll be a tough sell to convince others that this personal blog would serve any encyclopedic purpose. DreamGuy 15:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Vlad Tempis Dracula

Hey...I offered you some photos of Dracula's Snagov gravesite, fotress, chapel, etc. that I took over the summer, but you did not respond. Are you interested? --DashaKat 12:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing that offer. Is this supposed to be for work on some article here? DreamGuy 15:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Purely personal. Here the original post, dated 9 Sept 07...

Hey...I'm taking some time off, but before I disappear, I understand that some of your interests lie in occult legend and myth, specifically werewolves, vampires, and the like. I just returned from Romania, and had an opportunity to spend time in Snagov, as well as Bran. I'm wondering if you'd be interested in the pictures I took of Vlad Tempes' gravesite, and the church in which it resides. I've got a great shot of one of his original impaler devices, as well as a shot of the well he forced to have dug by hand...actually by hand...no tools. I even had a drink out of it...kinda creepy, but the water is sweet. Gory stuff aside, the church itself is magnificently painted and maintained.

Best...--DashaKat 20:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

NNDB

Hi, I have renominated the nndb template- Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_29#Template:Nndb_name. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, see my comment at the end of the tfd discussion- I think there has been some organized defending of NNDB going on by people associated with Soylent Communications and Rands. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, as it has happened in the past when I brought up NNDB elsewhere. By the way, I mentioned this on the WP:EL talk page because the editors there had previously ruled the site to be spam, which is where some of the recent delete votes came from. I don't know if it will be enough though. Over and over there we're seeing that people working with an agenda can mobilize and appear to be lots of people so that it overwhelms editors who genuinely care about the topic and who happen to take note of the controversy and take the time to express an opinion. With sockpuppets, paid marketing assistants at companies who have Misplaced Pages editing as part of their ob descriptions and so forth we've really got our work cut out for ourselves. DreamGuy 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom enforcement complaint filed

I am not sure if you received the notice and removed it, or if the person filing the complaint forgot to notify you, but I wanted to make sure that you were aware that such a complaint has in fact been filed, noting violations of both Misplaced Pages policies and your previous ArbCom restrictions. As per policy, you are supposed to be notified. - Arcayne () 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to file complaints, but it would be better for everyone involved if you didn't waste everyone's time with false accusations. The person who brought it up in the first place said there was nothing actionable and that he also regretted even bringing it up. You jumped on it with all the same false claims you have been making elsewhere, and the other people there also pointed out that you had nothing worth reporting. So please just give it a rest already.

Also, please heed the admin's warning above and do not post to this page. DreamGuy 18:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are greatly misinterpreting the ArbCom enforcement complaint, but then, that's okay - every man is the hero in his own story. As for heeding the admin's warning, my posts to you have not been an attack or anyting less than civil. Are you opting to ban me from your User Talk page? Please recall that, until your usage of alternate IPs to edit and defend your primary account positions within articles, you had my unfailing support. However, simply say that you don't want me to post any questions to your user talk page again, and I won't. Ionly posted recently to inform you of the ArbCom enforcement complaint, as others had apparently failed to adivse you.It was your right to know. I am sorry that you took umbrage to that notification. It wasn't as if I've ever attacked you or been uncivil. Compared to others you have banned, i am actually a big fluffy kitten. :) - Arcayne () 19:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

When you've been asked not to post to a user's talk page, continuing to post is a form of harassment. Please find something else to do besides posting here. - Jehochman 19:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asked before I noted his comment. I was seeking clarification. Perhaps you can defend your pal against someone who's actually uncivil? Either way, I shant post here again. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 01:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect... You were explicitly told several times not to post here. DreamGuy 23:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy_2 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete Arcayne () 01:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering that I have been blocked... and for not apparent reason, I might add... I can't respond over there, but there is absolutely no evidence of any activity that qualifies as sockpuppeting, because I have not done so. DreamGuy 23:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

ANI notice

- Jehochman 02:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, when linking to ANI, it is more helpful to link to the actual section in question. And of course, if your claim is that I am "free to comment at the discussion," that kind of becomes impossible when you then go ahead and block. DreamGuy 00:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Block

This is a one week block. It will be discussed, and may be lengthened. Please post comments here and I or another editor may proxy them to the ANI thread. - Jehochman 13:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

DreamGuy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

absolutely no reason given for this block, at all... Claims of using a sockpuppet are absolutely false. Claims of breaking 3RR are also absolutely false. It'd be nice if the editor making the block actually took the time to show actual evidence of either even happening before blocking. I look at the page he linked to about this "discussion" but see no discussion other than merely taking the word of an editor who has clear personal conflicts with me and has invented up totally false accusations...

Decline reason:

Plenty of evidence that trouble has been caused by this user. — Adam Cuerden 00:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Furthermore, when the editor who blocked me is asked (on the ANI page) to provide a reason for doing so, so far all he has replied with is a link to a page full of long, long accusations by an editor who has a personal conflict with me, and then to link to four comments I made as allegedly being uncivil yet that only showed examples of me bending over backwards to be civil to editors who were making false accusations, talking about the editor and not the edit, and so forth. A block should be based upon something real. DreamGuy 23:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason given was disruptive sockpuppetry, as supported by strong evidence. I've told El C (or any other admin) that they can unblock you if they wish. When your block is lifted or expires, please don't edit war, and especially don't use sock puppets to edit war. Thank you. - Jehochman 23:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What "strong evidence"? Surely if there is such evidence, you could give links to diffs to show it. I did not use any sockpuppets to edit war. If you blocked me for doing so, surely you could give an example... If you cannot, then you should do the right thing and undo the block. Even if Arcayne's claims are all 100% true (and they aren't), there's nothing there that would be sockpuppeting. And, on top of that, I don't know why you can call me "disruptive" and to further state you want me blocked so other people can edit an article without my input when they have not taken any effort to build a consensus... This block is the result of Arcayne edit warring being uncivil and then deciding that, when I tried to have a real discussion about the article, that he'd rather just find a way to get me blocked than to deal with what Misplaced Pages is supposed to do: debate changed on an encyclopedic basis, following policies, to improve the articles... And in this case all you are doing is basically encouraging people to skip consensus building and instead just make false accusations to get their way. DreamGuy 00:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

From above: "Decline - Plenty of evidence that trouble has been caused by this user. — Adam Cuerden "

Would it be too much for someone to actually provide such evidence? Because, honestly, so far all I've seen is an editor (User:Arcayne) who has been very combative, uncivil, and so forth making accusations of 3RR violation, but no edit diffs to prove such a thing. DreamGuy 00:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you asked, the sockpuppetry evidence is linked at User talk:71.203.223.65. Are you denying that that's you? Or just denying that using an IP account to avoid scrutiny while your ArbCom case was pending was "disruptive"? Dicklyon 00:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am specifying denying that any activity that IP address did, if I had been signed onto it, could at all meet the definition of "sockpuppeting". You can't just find some label that's accusatory and assign it to anyone you want to try to make someone sound bad. I have not disrupted Misplaced Pages on this account, on any IP account, or in any combination of accounts. DreamGuy 00:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny says "Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this may occasionally be legitimate (see below under legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts -- or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account -- in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions." That's what you did by switching all your edits to an anonymous account, pretending to have left wikipedia, when the ArbCom case was opened about Aug. 24. Remember now? Dicklyon 01:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I did leave Misplaced Pages for a while... but I did not do anything to confuse or deceive anyone. I don't know why spending some time having a life for a change is construed as a bad thing, and I get tired of being accused of all sorts of bad behavior by people who do not seem to follow the basics of WP:AGF and so forth. The bottom line here is that my edits are good edits that improve the encyclopedia, I have bent over backwards to follow all ArbCom rulings, and people filing false complaints and getting me blocked temporarily aren't going to force me off this project just so that they don't have to try to work toward consensus or follow Misplaced Pages policies they would rather not follow. DreamGuy 01:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that 71.203.223.65 was not you? Dicklyon 02:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, folks, if this is a test to see if I will remain friendly and civil while being blocked by people who give no reason and who refuse to discuss it, I think I've proven myself to remain civil under even the most outrageously trying circumstances. But then I have a long history of getting blocked by admins who haven't really looked into the situation much at all and being unblocked by admins who do, so I guess I'm getting used to this kind of treatment. When the block is lifted (hopefully sooner rather than later) I'll still be making all the good edits to improve this encyclopedia. DreamGuy 00:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please write up your side of the Arcayne story and email it to one of the Arbitration clerks so they can add it to the discussion. If I've misunderstood the situation, I am sure they will straighten it out quickly. - Jehochman 01:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Having received permission from Jehochman to unblock, I'll add that I nonetheless remain disappointed that he has issued this block without providing anything concrete (at least concrete enough to the satisfaction of Dmcdevit and myself ). As for Adam Cuerden's declining the request, I'm not sure how to respond to that, except to note that reviewing unblock requests isn't a mere formality, or limited to the most obvious cases. More judicious, informed, and informative/informational review is needed. Further, Gnangarra blocking the ip was poorly rationalized. A lot of this, unfortunately, might be attributed to groupthink, which needs to be avoided at all costs. I also note in disappointment the original account of wrongdoing by Arcayne, which was poorly organized, dated, assembled, and so on. That so many of the above individuals, however, took the claims in Arcayne's account at face value, is just as disturbing, if not more so. The epitome of that, I felt, was Relata refero's claim that DreamGuy "violated 3RR pretty badly," yet refusing to point out to me the diffs from Arcayne's account that made him arrive at this conclusion, instead, instructing me to "plow through the diffs " (!). Finally, I consider Dicklyon a valuable editor, who I, personally, like. But I do not wish to see him editing this talk page because now's not the time to revive these old, borader grievances. Thus, the individuals mentioned above are admonished. I'd like to extend special thanks to Dmcdevit for remaining levelhaded and not giving-in to crowed mentality. Request handled by: El_C 02:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Three administrators went on record supporting the block. Only two opposed. Nonetheless, I agreed to the unblock as a gesture of goodwill. Hopefully the parties involved here will seek reconciliation, rather than carrying this dispute onward. You admonishment is factually incorrect and not an appropriate response to my attempt at reconciliation. I encourage you to strike it, El C. - Jehochman 05:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If you abuse your position this way, I will personally submit a motion to have you censured. El_C 06:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I think I'm just going to go ahead with formal proceedings. El_C 07:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock. It's sad that the three admins who were in favor of the block didn't make any effort to come up with a reason before doing so. This place really needs some sort of official system in place instead of just leaving such important things up to the whims of individuals who wander by. DreamGuy 18:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward

I am copying this same message to both Arcayne and DreamGuy.

The time now is to move on. There is no proof that DreamGuy has committed any blockable offenses, so let's assume good faith and try to get a consensus going.

Regarding the accusations of sockpuppetry, since the RFCU was denied we will never know for sure. I propose we stay agnostic about whether it occurred, and never speak of it again (unless suspicions arise anew). DreamGuy, if you were falsely accused, I apologize. If you indeed were editing anonymously, consider this a mulligan: go forth and sin no more :)

Regarding Jack the Ripper, I would like to get an RfC going. The problem we have is that there are not enough editors to have a true consensus. If Arcayne says, "I think X," and DreamGuy says, "I think Y," then we are at an impasse without a 3rd (or 4th or 5th) opinion.

Does this sound okay for now? --Jaysweet 17:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I already filed an RFC an hour or so ago. DreamGuy 17:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Whitechapel murders

I protected and mirrored the expiration on this redirect to that of Jack the Ripper. Other then cleaning up indef protected pages though, I'm not very familiar with these pages. Thank you, — xaosflux 23:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on second review I've unprotected that page, it looks like it was not a redirect before the JTR protection went on. You may request protection at WP:RFPP if you would still like it protected. Thank you, — xaosflux 23:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Just passing through, following up your rationale for an old edit - I don't know if it's been said before(!), but you should maybe consider taking a few moments to archive old comments rather than deleting them, if you're going to be making edit comments along the lines of "per discussion other editor started on my talkpage". --McGeddon 18:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe you should know this already, but every page on this site has a history link so you can see all of the old versions. Archiving on top of that just reduplicates all the info that's already been saved forever by virtue of the fact that this project runs on wiki software. If you saw some old comment somewhere about something someone said on my talk page, you can always look at the date stamp of that comment, go to my talk page, then go to the history and look it up. I'm just doing my part to cut down on a totally pointless waste of server space. If that were the standard here instead of something that confuses people, that annoying request for more money that appears at the top of the page all the time wouldn't be here as often. DreamGuy 20:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Union officer "con man" on Tumlety claim

I'd love to hear some of the info you have... and in fact it may warrant a brief mention in the article. I'll explain why in a sec.

First, let me give you some context about this. I live in a suburb of Rochester, NY. I was mentioning to my wife that I had learned more about Jack the Ripper in the last few days than I ever thought I would :D She said, "I heard Jack the Ripper -- well, one of the main suspects -- is buried at Mt. Hope cemetery" (that's a huge and locally-famous cemetery that I used to live less than a mile away from).

So, I decided to check it out. They are referring to Tumblety. If you take a glance at the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle article I linked to (the D&C is the primary newspaper in a city of over 200,000, which makes it pretty significant and with an air of authority, although I readily admit that it is a crap newspaper and I find false info in it all the time), you will see that they give quite a bit of weight to the Union officer story. The article implies Tumblety is pretty much the main suspect, even though it is clear to me from perusing the JtR suspects article that Tumblety is an unlikely candidate at best. They also refer to a dude that isn't even mentioned in any of the Misplaced Pages JtR articles as being "the foremost expert in Ripperology."

In short, the D&C article is crap, total Wobegon material. However, at least 200,000 people (and who knows how many more) are likely to accept it as face value. So, if it can be done in a sentence or less, I'd love to see a little prose in the Tumblety section mentioning the most often cited arguments for Tumblety, and why they are total crap...

I'm not dead set on it, though, and have to always be mindful of WP:UNDUE. In any case, if the material is handy, I'd be interested in any more info on Tumblety, even if we don't put it in the article. ---- Jaysweet (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I put some info on the talk page of the article, including two sources.

The expert being mentioned in the news article you linked to is "Stewart Evans, a retired British constable who’s widely considered to be the world’s leading authority on the Ripper murders" -- and, actually he definitely is. He shows up in the main article as Stewart P. Evans, which is how his books are typically credited. Google the name. His first Ripper book pushed Tumblety heavily, but since then he has moved onto titles that do not try to advance any suspect. He has since said that he himself thinks the uteri story cannot be trusted (but might still be true despite the bad source) and isn't strong evidence either way. (And he has said this in private correspondence and some message board posts, so it'd be difficult to source.)

Unfortunately, otherwise the article seems to just accept all the old claims about Tumblety when he was first introduced as a suspect years back and without any updated info since then. But, at least as far as the uteri story goes, the info showing it to be by a con man (instead of just a wild rumor from a respeted military man) didn't come out until after that article ran. -- DreamGuy (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I must have searched for "Stewart Evans" instead of "Stewart P. Evans," heh... Well this is all very informative! Thanks! I am still wondering if it might make some sense to directly address the uteri rumor in the article, if only to discredit it... but I'm not dead set on that, just seeing what you think. In any case, thanks very much for the info!!

Reply regarding Arcayne and JtR

I just got your message on my talk page. The bad news is I have been sort of avoiding Misplaced Pages the last couple of days because I need to catch up on work stuff before I go on Thanksgiving vacation tomorrow, and then, well, I'll be on Thanksgiving vacation, heh, so the soonest I'll be able to do any real follow-up would be Saturday or Sunday (and maybe not even until Monday).

That said, I am very sensitive to your concerns and growing increasingly frustrated with some of Arcayne's actions. Initially I do believe he came to this discussion as a neutral 3rd party, and I don't believe he had any specific POV to push. Since that time, he seems to have developed somewhat of a grudge against you, which I believe is clouding his judgment. Also, regarding the "serial killer" thing, I am speculating here, but I think Arcayne has a background in psychology, which is influencing the way he views these terms. It isn't all that unusual for a term to mean two different things depending on the field, after all...

I am sorry to say, but I think that some of this has been brought about by some occasional posturing on your part. I am very pleased with the compromises you have agreed to and I really value your knowledge on this subject and what you bring to the table. On the other hand, occasionally your comments come across as overly dismissive -- and ironically, they are worst when you are correct! :D Anyway, that is just food for thought for the future, that maybe even when you know you are right about something, it can help to use a gentler tone to avoid provoking a fight that doesn't need to happen.

That said, I fear at this point Arcayne has enough of a grudge that it doesn't really matter what you do. A few of his edits have really confused me. Anyway, when I get back I will do what I can to continue to mediate this whole fiasco. Both of you can be quite reasonable folks, so we should be able to work something out... Happy Turkey Day! --Jaysweet (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Anthemoessa

Hi! I created a page called Anthemoessa. It's about the island of the Sirens. http://en.wikipedia.org/Anthemoessa Would you mind editing it please? Thanks! Neptunekh (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Restoring false information

Instead of backchecking for other sources you restored an information which i showed to be false. You claimed that a scientific lecture is nonencyclopedic?! Look into this books reference list:

http://www.angelfire.com/ca/heart7/MindControl.pdf MIND CONTROL USING HOLOGRAPHY AND DISSOCIATION: A PROCESS MODEL. By Murray Gillin Ph.D. Loris Gillin M. Ed (Psych), and Deva Paul. March 2000:

Ross, Colin A. 1996. “The CIA and Military Mind Control Research: Building the Manchurian Candidate” 9th Annual Clinical Conference on Trauma and Dissociation, April 18, Orange County, California.

I would have accepted it, if you just took his name out of the article, but you restored false information without even remarking it on the discussion page.

Now I have also set up more sources. --MaffiaPeter (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot my password and therefore switched the two words of my username.

Sorry... If you claim I restored false information you'll have to be more specific, as I see nothing false there. Keep in mind, though, that an angelfire page is not a reliable source, and I think you are vastly overstating the case to call it a "scientific lecture" -- all sorts of people make all sorts of claims that they try to portray as scientific. More to the point, the whole mind control conspiracy theory stuff doesn't really belong in the article in question. DreamGuy (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Dreamguy, you are not the one to decide, what is scientific or not, it's the scientists. Ross is a Clinical Psychologist / Psychiatrist, his work has been published by the University of Toronto and - as i have shown - is accepted for discussion and reference in journals, conferences and scientific works. You ignore my other sources.

2. I have been very specific on the discussion page. See there for more. Mind Control is not necessarily (SRA-)Cults. The information on Ross' point of view was false.

3. Mind Control is not a "conspiracy theory". The WP article on it clearly states that it's a bunch of scientific psychological / sociological theories and also experiments, which can also be related to certain cults (a cult is not a conspiracy). There is an actual controversy going on in science and therefor it does belong in this article (according to NPOV). The debate whether mind control is possible and about the consequence of mind control experiments - which ARE real - has also big relevance for the victims of mind control experiments. See United States v. Stanley and 4. .

4. Also you had to trial the articles Project CHATTER, Operation Paperclip, Project BLUEBIRD, Project ARTICHOKE, Project MKULTRA, Project MKDELTA, Project MKNAOMI, Sidney Gottlieb and probably more. These experiments are no myth, it's serious. See Church Committee. It's a myth to deny them, similar (not the same) as denying the mass extinction by the nazis.

5. Only because you consider some position to be wrong, you have no right to exclude it from WP.

6. Please write your argumentation on the discussion page. I just used this page to adress what does not belong on the discussion page - your personal technical failure in restoring false information and now the lack of differention between mind control theory, conspiracy theory, cults and clandestine agencies together with historical non-knowledge and a personal appeal to use the discussion page for discurse.

7. Please don't take my personal critique as a personal attack.

8. I will restore my changes, since Verifiability and Relevance are given.

--MaffiaPeter (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

All I really need to say is that I disagree quite strongly on virtually every single one of your arguments and that I have just as much right to be editing that article as you do. Mind control claims are a conspiracy theory, are not accepted science, and are off topic for that article. DreamGuy (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not about whether mind control works or not. I don't know this. But it's simply a fact that experiments on mind or behaviour control have been made by the Nazis, Sowjets and the CIA (Operation Paperclip links the concentration camps and the CIA). Point. My politic science profs do not doubt that. I gave you 10 wikipedia articles where this is established. The Church Committee did research this. What arguments do you have to deny it?

Whether mind or behaviour control works or not and the relation to DID has to be established by scientific controversy. Since the article is about the "Multiple personality CONTROVERSY" and not about "Multiple personality syndrome" or "Dissociative identity disorder", this theory is relevant.

Before you don't say more than "All I really need to say is that I disagree quite strongly", before you don't come up with arguments and reliable sources to show that mind or behaviour control experiments have not happened and that the public history is false, i will see your deletion of my contributions as an act of vandalism. You "really need to say" more! --MaffiaPeter (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to learn what vandalism is and is not before you label something as vandalism. Go read the vandalism policy. Mind control is not relevant to this topic. The controversy being discussed is not about mind control. Take it to the appropriate article. DreamGuy (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Str1977's edits on Elizabeth Bathory page

Hi, DreamGuy,

Thanks for removing Str1977's recent edits to the Bathory page. He admits to having a POV, and his edits seem to reflect that POV. Oh, well... Wiki gets there slowly, oh so slowly...

Timothy Perper (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, his edits were pretty out of line, and he didn't even try to disguise his POV-pushing. DreamGuy (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Modern mythology

Hello DreamGuy. You just deleted a few paragraphs that were added to the "modern" Mythology section, and I would like to know exactly why. First, I should say that I'm not writing on my behalf. I am a close associate of Peter Green (Classical professor at Iowa U) and Ralph Blum (best selling author of "The Book of Runes"). I administer their network communications, among other things. I'm not too sure of your own credentials, other than that you've "been published," as you say in your profile. It would have been nice to see you correct any editorial errors that may have been made. But deleting entire paragraphs does require an explanation, doesn't it? The work of Carl Jung is rather important to the subject of modern mythology, especially his "Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies. C. G. Jung, (London, 1959)." If the flying saucer myth doesn't interest you, that's fine. Leave it alone. Trashing Jung in his own particular field looks like censorship more than scholarship. If you disagree with Jung's famous analysis, just add your own knowledgable comments. Don't insist on removing Jung's renown subject of mythology from Misplaced Pages. It's not under your exclusive possession or control. That could be seen as vandalism. DreamGuy: OK. I am new to Misplaced Pages, so I hope you show some patience, because I won't go away... You suggested that there is a CIO or conflict of interest in the paragraphs I added. Can you please explain more? Democritus is indeed traditionally accused of being the first Greek philosopher to challenge the gods of mythology. Why not include that information in Misplaced Pages? Were you aware of it? Where is the conflict of interest here? Maybe the tone of the narrative needs to be softened? As for Carl Jung, - well, you'd be way out of there if you thought his monumental work on archetypes doesn't belong in the modern mythology section, but "Star Wars" and "Tarzan" do. Fkapnist 25 November 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 01:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "If the flying saucer myth doesn't interest you, that's fine. Leave it alone. " You also asked about my qualifications ad so forth. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Misplaced Pages works. First up, credentials aren't an issue (though I can assure you my credentials in mythology are certainly better than those of a network administrator), giving solid, informative and on-topic information is. Flying saucers are not a notable topic for the mythology article. Also, you claim "that could be seen as vandalism" -- no, it cannot. Please take the time to read our policy on vandalism and especially the part about what vandalism is not. If you disagree with me, that's just a disagreement. My removing the information is no more vandalism than you adding it in the first place. Furthermore, we also work under a thing here called consensus. Your edits are both new and controversial, and you cannot demand that they stay. This highly aggressive tone of yours is completely misplaced, and you won't have much success editing here if that's how you try to get your way. DreamGuy (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends on where you stick the essay tag, eh?

That's odd. Pages have all kinds of odd markings. For instance, 5 Pillars has been marked as an essay several times. At that point in time, would it be safe to not follow a neutral point of view or to fail to Assume good faith for instance? Also, the Essay template is often abused by people who think it can be used to change policy, merely by sticking on different templates. (Search me why, but they do). How do you prevent such abuse in your version of the template?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, in fact, that's probably the most common situation these days, where essays discuss policy in more detail, or discuss corner cases of policy. For instance Misplaced Pages:Follow consensus, not policy restates parts of Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point and Misplaced Pages:Consensus, not heeding that particular essay's advice will most certainly get you banned.

For some such cases people have been using custom tags (for instance for Misplaced Pages:What "Ignore all rules" means), because of earlier miswordings in the essay tag, making for ... well... a bit of a mess really. (The page is still in Category:Misplaced Pages essays).

User:Durova recently was forced to hand in her admin flag, because she had failed to heed the advice of WIARM.

But at any rate, assuming that I speak nonsense without asking is probably a bad idea. ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I can tell nonsense when I see it, as can the very clear consensus of editors on that template. People do not have to follow essays. If an essay just coincidentally says the same things said in a policy that people do have to follow, it's not that they had to follow the essay, they had to follow the policy. Too many people were linking to mere essays in deletion debates and elsewhere and trying to confuse people into thinking they were policies to support their side. Any yokel off the street can make up an essay. It needs to be clear that they hold no special weight in and of themselves. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

repressed memory

Hi DreamGuy, you've just reverted a number of compromises I was suggesting on this topic. I have been discussing this on the talk page over the past few days, and have been able to make this whole section much less extreme than it was previously, and the whole thing was starting to look more stable. I incorporated the lovely piece from MatthewTStone from the recovered memory that presented both sides of the cutler argument, as well as pruning the piece down from the leadership council in a way that AbuseTruth seemed to find acceptable. I don't want to get into a revert war, so would appreciate it if you would revert it yourself. --Vannin 21:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll go fix the parts made by other editors in the meantime, but the article absolutely cannot have all of those links and new sections Abuse truth keeps shoving into it, as they have been discussed on that article and several others he edits on as not meeting WP:RS and WP:EL. This has been established by consensus of several editors in a number of places (especially as he tries to add the same content to all sorts of articles). Some parts of it might be "much less extreme" but WP:NPOV is pretty clear that only somewhat extreme is not a valid option. In the future if you want to make progress on editing make sure you edit from the version before he reverts to put all that controversial and unapproved content back in again, as we just have to keep taking it out. You might also look at a version of the article before Abuse truth started editing it to get a better idea of what a less extreme version looks like. DreamGuy 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've gone back and readded the parts that might be salvageable and made further edits to try to follow WP:NPOV policy. there really wasn't much to save there, and I ended up removing additional content I hadn't seen before. I also left talk page comments and commented out text in the article to explain in more detail. DreamGuy 21:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it back. I have been whittling away at this article gradually in an effort to move towards some compromise, which is why I've always discussed changes first on the talk page. I've also added back in the piece from RMT by MatthewTStone, because I think that it is actually an accurate description - some therapists do regret the move away from RMT even though professional organizations, informed by research, have warned against it. If there is no mention of Cutler at all then we will just go back to the endless revert war. --Vannin 22:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi DreamGuy, With the reference to Cutler - this was discussed on the talk page several days ago and both AT and AR agreed to use the summary from the RMT page. It is not using Cutler as an academic reference as such, but as representative of what a number of therapists say (and believe me, they do at great length on a number of list-serves), and the piece by Dr. Brent Waters puts it in context - that there is lack of scientific support for RMT and persuasive interview techniques are problematic, particularly in therapy. Please discuss this on the talk page rather than reverting. I end up feeling attacked when you do that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vannin (talk • contribs)

You feel attacked? There's no grounds for you to feel attacked. The edit comments fully explained it. WP:RS is pretty clear on this matter. If you want to discuss what a number of therapists say, you need to get a real source about what those therapists say, not a blog post. Anyone can say anything on a blog post, it means nothing. DreamGuy 23:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I think we are now back to the pointless reverts rather than having any discussion or compromise. I thought we were making some progress on gradually shaping the article and making it more science-based. Please take it to the talk page first, rather than just reverting--Vannin 00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It was on the talk page (in at least several of the many articles Abuse truth has tried to put the exact same content) and certainly in the edit comments. I'm not sure how you think adding text about just what some blogger claims is "more science-based". The problem here is that we've already explained to Abuse truth over and over and HE just keeps reverting back to his changes to the article. If you support the principle that things need to be discussed before the article should be changed, then talk to him. We can't let a single editor with a very obvious agenda show up and try to rewrite whole articles over the complaints of other editors and then say nobody is allowed to revert him. That's not how things work. He's even put completely false edit comments on many of his reverts to some of these articles so it claims he didn't change anything but formatting but instead readde all the same sources that he has been told by multiple editors do not meet WP:RS policies. DreamGuy (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder

Would you mind dropping by WP:EA to comment on the situation? ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 12:11, December 6, 2007

Thanks for the alert. It's funny how the people trying to sneak pretty aggressive changes against consensus are always running off trying to report others for alleged misdeeds. DreamGuy (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Quack therapeutic theories

Any idea how we can deal with the rash of aggressive POV editing on Satanic ritual abuse, Recovered memory therapy, and similar pages? How do editors representing the mainstream scientific consensus make sure that articles like Evolution and Creationism stay balanced? I'm sure they must have had creationist POV-pushers show up at some point, and this is nearly as bad as what we're seeing now. Unfortunately, since I'm graduating from college now, I will no longer have ready access to JSTOR and other academic databases. (I may have access again in half a year if I go on to graduate school.) And I'm not wealthy enough that I can buy books off of Amazon just to win arguments on Misplaced Pages. But someone needs to do something about all this POV-pushing of fringe views. Thanks for doing your part. I will try to look at the other articles the POV-pushers are targeting when I get a chance. *** Crotalus *** 07:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Crotalus is 100% right. I am dismayed about what happened to the SRA article since I took a 5-month wikivacation: the fringe view now reings! It turned a very good article into a shame. Like Crotalus I have no time to argue with the fringe pov-pushers. And Antaneus Feldspar is no longer editing in Misplaced Pages. (I loved his agressive style when confronting the SRA buffs). What can be done? Mediation? Cesar Tort 05:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know what can be done with these people. Evolution only gets by because a huge group of people concerned about science patrol it regularly and put a stop to it. These articles in question have some people trying to do that, but the POV-pushers just keep putting the same nonsense back even after a group of editors have all said it doesn;t belong. I think RFCs on the POV pushers might be the best bet, but otherwise, due to the nature of this website, eternal vigilance and countless hours undoing bad edits is the only option. It's really a shame that the system is set up that the people with the most extreme views can most easily take articles hostage just by ignoring policies and everyone else. DreamGuy (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In the evolution article we soaked it in authoritative references and respond to attempts to change the meaning by pointing to WP:V and saying "that's what the source says". Tim Vickers (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Add private messages again like you did to the above page, and you'll be blocked - I've just had to delete the revision. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if you are worried about the copyright on the message -- as a number of editors asked that the message be posted I did not think anyone would object. You put me in the position of being demanded to show evidence while at the same time being prohibited from doing so. Further, as someone who is supporting Elonka's request for adminship it would seem to be a major conflict of interest for you to hide evidence of her abusive behaviors and to further follow it up with threats of a block. DreamGuy (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You will be blocked if you repost it, period - you can't post private material like that. Unfortunately there's no way you can prove off-wiki communication problems, people will just have to take your word for it. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In the past when people sent me abusive messages I was encouraged by members of ArbCom to forward it to them (don't recall if it was a mailing list or individuals) for use in enforcement of our policies. I also know that abusive messages can be sent to police and other groups, so in such situations private messages can certainly be made public. I don't know what the dividing line here is, but I do know that you should not be the one making any threats. If it is actually a real Misplaced Pages policy and not just something you made up to try to get someone approved then surely a neutral party can deal with it, and less aggressively I might add. DreamGuy (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please forward me the message at eentweedrievier2007@yahoo.com . Thanks. -David A. Wilson Mindraker (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Now (almost) all of the drama has died sown, I thought I would contact you and a few other users who opposed the RfA. Since I helped Elonka get adminship I now share the responsibility if you are correct and she misuses the tools. I still think this is unlikely, but if you do become aware of any such abuse could I ask you to contact me and I will try to deal with it. I don't want any future "dramabomb" and I may have a better chance of being able to mediate and defuse conflicts. Anyway, I don't think this will be necessary, but I thought making this offer might help avert any future problems. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Renfield's syndrome

Hi, I've nominated this for deletion here as I doubt it satisfies notability. Chipping in with opinions is welcomed, including reasons or evidence for keeping it.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Satanic ritual abuse. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 02:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Not sure if you're aware, but someone has reopened the checkuser with a new request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/DreamGuy in case you want to comment. Shell 17:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise... same old people crying sockpuppet despite not knowing what the word means solely to try to cause controversy. DreamGuy (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for ArbCom extension

FYI, I have requested an extension of ArbCom restrictions on your editing behavior. For more information, please see: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Request for extension of restrictions at DreamGuy 2. --Elonka 01:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I could have sworn you were supposed to stop your ongoing campaign of false accusations when you became an admin.... guess you don't care that you are proving to the world that you will do everything we warned people you'd do. DreamGuy (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just an idea, but couldn't you put up the IP address(es) that you have edited from on your user page? No one would be able to accuse you of sockpuppetry without some harder evidence then, since you'd be open about using anon accounts as well as this one. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 96 hours for gaming the system re your arbcom violation. The clarification request is archived here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/DreamGuy_2#Request_for_extension_of_restrictions_at_DreamGuy_2. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)