Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) at 02:17, 3 August 2005 (→3RR). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I've deleted a welcome message and several posts from someone upset that I removed links to her site that were inappropriately added to several pages. If you feel like reading those, they are in the history.

Please add new comments below.

DreamGuy 01:38, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

I have archived some comments. Click this link if you want to see them.

Gwine

Thanks for looking over Scipiocoon's contributions. I'm bothered by the casual use of words and phrases like "darkish dialect" and "smoky entertainment." I'm at work, and can't roam the Wiki as freely as I can at home. Glad someone else is watching out. Let me know if there's any way I can help. Joyous 13:36, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Ripper victim

If I remember correctly Gordon is a new member. He might not be aware of the policies regarding moves. And I could be wrong, but I think he hasn't had all that much time to respond. He was busy editing the reference sections. I'll talk to him and change the link as soon as the page is moved. ] 21:59, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, he's new. He's been going through and changing it to Catharine other places too even after seeing my concern on his talk page at least (as he responded to it, though he may have missed the explanation). I have no problem with waiting for it to be cleared up, but then if he starts hunting down all mentions of "Catherine" on other pages (suspects, famous prostitutes, people famous in death, etc.) it's just that much more to undo later. The article was previously on an article with the correct spelling, which he has since forwarded to the new one he made, so would we have to have the original deleted and the new one moved? DreamGuy 22:04, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the title on the Ripper letters template, technically speaking the postcard wasn't a letter, but you're right. The title was misleading. I'll keep an I on the Catharine links and see how it goes. ] 08:37, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

George Chapman

Hi DreamGuy;

Thanks for your message regarding Dr. Thomas Neill Cream. Thanks for fixing the page up a bit too with regards to my misspelling of his name.

I've recently added an entry for George Chapman, the Polish guy listed as a possible Ripper suspect (it needed a Disambiguation because it's also the same name as some poet or other.) I did not put a huge amount about the case because I only have one book that mentions him and I can't find too much on the web other than those that list a brief description of him under the heading of 'Ripper suspects'. I'll see what else I can find to expand it a bit. I also put in a note about how he is considered a suspect by Frederick Abberline but how he is also disregarded by some as a suspect because it is unlikely a nutcase would go from ripping women open to just poisoning girlfriends. Obviously you are more than welcome to add to the cross-referencing between Chapman and Jack T. Ripper; I figure myself quite knowledgable on most things serial-killery but not so much on historical cases, so you sound like the best person to inject such Ripper-related info into the Chapman article.

Take care. User:Robert Mercer, December 23

Ads

There is Misplaced Pages:External links, which also links to Misplaced Pages:Spam#External link spamming.

When an administrator goes to the User contributors , or difference between revisions (clicking "compare selected versions" in the page history), there appears next to each edit which is still the most recent of each article a "rollback" button which undones the edit and creates an automated message.

I'll take a look at that edit history. Hyacinth 04:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

way too unnecessarily specific

Yes, you're probably right. Sorry. In my defense, though, I'd like to point out that I changed it from "US$10", which I find a particularly horrid hieroglyph, up there with "and/or". De gustibus... –Hajor 15:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No defense needed, I was just explaining my edit. I would agree with you that US$ is generally not something an encyclopedia article should have, and in cases where it's necessary to specify your way would be better. DreamGuy 15:28, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Beltway Sniper Attacks

I was working on red links for Bushmaster Firearms, Inc. and was also in the Beltway Sniper article. I understand your points, and will stand clear this time. SBTC (Sorry 'bout that chief). Thanks for your work to improve these articles and links. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 15:21, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Let me respond over on your page... DreamGuy 15:31, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Brady Campaign and Brady Center

I felt that is was important to get the information into the sniper story that some action was taken to recover something for the victims and hold the gun dealer responsible. Bushmaster will probably be more cautious in selecting who will distribute their guns also.

These are apparently two separate entities, both still in existence. They have different origins the were brought together with Brady names if I am reading the website correctly. From this website:

"The Brady Campaign works to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies through grassroots activism, electing progun control public officials and increasing public awareness of gun violence."

"The Brady Center works to reform the gun industry and educate the public about gun violence through litigation and grassroots mobilization, and works to enact and enforce sensible regulations to reduce gun violence including regulations governing the gun industry."

It sounds like the Legal Action Project could be involved in both, but mostly the latter. They probably have different funding and while the goals seem to be similar, in the political and lobbying worlds they would find political friends in varying camps.

See if you agree: http://www.bradycenter.org/about/

I'll fix the red in Brady article. If I can get more information, i will write a short bio to fit the red linked owner of Bull's Eye. Mark Vaoverland 16:25, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on naming conventions. That is a weak area for me. I wasn't involved with the Brady Campaign article, and i didn't popup when I created the Brady Center etc article. Are you going to work on it? Its unfamilar terrority to me. Vaoverland 17:44, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

RE: James Brady didn't found Brady Center or Brady Campaign, makes sense, since each was older org predating his injury which they renamed in his honor (and to gain better publicity, no doubt). Vaoverland 19:20, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Brady again

Sorry about the duplicate int link. During the night, someone working from an IP address relocated his place of birth to Daytona Beach, Florida and I was in there fixing that (after verifying that Centralia, Illinois was accurate). Vaoverland 18:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

"Image:Akhenaton.jpg"

Thanks for calling my attention to my error in tagging Image:Akhenaton.jpg. I have no doubt you are correct. I'll try to be more careful in the future. —Vespristiano 07:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The High Road

I'm impressed at how you're handling the harassment on your talk page. You seem to be staying calm while dealing with others who are acting childishly. Joyous 22:48, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Pazuzu

Why remove the TV section/Futura reference from the Pazuzu entry? It seems just as relevent as all of the other pop culture references. ((Also, how do you sign something in MediaWiki?)) (was unsigned, but by User:Troublekit)

I'm replying to you there on the talk page. To sign something type four ~ symbols in a row. DreamGuy 06:04, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Troublekit 07:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Harpy

Good work on the Harpy article man :) FrancisTyers 00:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I have time to round up an image or two for that also. DreamGuy 02:27, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Medusa Edit

Wow that was a pretty dry edit to the Medusa page. I agree it needs a lot more and there are so many versions of the tale that some facts can get skewed but, really--a little literary voice doesn't hurt. 16:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ø

Hi... encyclopedias typically don't have "literary voice," if what you mean by that is the part that was there about fountaining blood from a decapitated stump of a neck or whatever it was that used to say. It's like they say on Dragnet: "Just the facts, ma'am." DreamGuy 01:39, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Mythology is an oral tradition---not so much about hard and fast "facts". It's true there are some basic things that should be adhered to, but a little embellishment in the form of strong description doesn't interfere with that. Part of the fun is the gore. 17:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Ø

You are talking about styles of storytelling when you should be concerned with encyclopedia style. We're here to give information about topics, not to emulate their style of writing. I would also disagree strongly that "gore" is a typical part of mythology, as very often those details are entirely glossed over. DreamGuy 17:52, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

John Doe

Why'd you edit out my line? I know the show didn't last long or was very well known, but at least two of the others listed weren't that famous either. unsigned, but left by anon user User:83.195.7.236

Mentioning the failed TV program John Doe on the Jack the Ripper page just because one solitary episode claiming to be based upon some facts from the Ripper case but botched them all is pointless subtrivia that doesn't belong on the page, as per my explanation in the edit comments. Two of other the others may not be that famous but they are considerably more famous than that... And it may be that some of the others were removed by me but put back, it's possible I may have to go back and delete more. DreamGuy 07:56, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Medusa

hi DreamGuy, i've answered on Medusa on my talk page. Thanks. Xah Lee 11:00, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

3rr Gabriel

I personally dislike blocks for 3RR violations, never supported them in the first place, and think they are overused. That said, they are policy, and I do block people for 3RR violations although I do so very rarely. I only blocked him because I wanted him to stop making irresponsible edits to the 9/11 article. He has stopped. Since the block served its purpose, I have removed it.

In general, the only good thing about 3RR blocks is that the threat of them prevents really lame edit wars. Occasionally they must actually be imposed for the threat to remain credible.

3RR blocks do nothing to improve the collegial atmosphere or social workings of Misplaced Pages, other than be preventing edit wars. Long-term blocks for repeat 3RR violations are unlikely to be supported by the admin community as a whole, and if they are, are most likely to result in sock puppets and so forth. Long-term blocks of people who are making a genuine effort to contribute (however misguided they may be) are a last resort that is used when an editor has exhausted the community's patience.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Request for comments

I just placed a request for comment on Gabrielsimon's behavior. Please read it and sign it if you agree. --Pablo D. Flores 13:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of comments

DreamGuy, why are you mad at me now? I thought we agreed to put the past behind us. : ( Dbraceyrules 23:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

In this recent edit you specifically mention your intent to never side with me on anything I ever do here. You've admitted that you are edit warring based upon your conflict with me and not based upon content of articles. You have once agains proven bad faith in your dealings here. You posted that rude comment, admitted your actions are based upon revenge, and then you come here asking why I am mad? It's because every time you claim that you want to let the past be the past you go elsewhere and continue your harassment and edit warring. DreamGuy 00:34, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I made that statement before saying anything about put the past aside. Sorry. Dbraceyrules 00:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Response from Evmore

Hi thanks for the questions concerning the pictures. I've never had a question so I hope it is alright for me to edit your page like this. Concerning the pictures:

• The cover page of Varney the Vampire is indeed a reprint edition, but it is by no means a modern publication, it is from a 1853 reprint. (It was first published in 1845.) Check here for information about it and other images.
• As for the images by Wang Wei, he as a website and an e-mail address, blizzard@wangwei-art.com, I asked him if I could post them on Misplaced Pages and he said yes. I have a copy of the e-mail with his authorization. Even without it, it would still be considered fair use. Do not remove my images again unless you are an administrator.
• As for the vampire killing kit picture, it is by someone releasing it into public domain. I don't know if I used the right tag or not but that is what it is.

(unsigned but by USer:Evmore)

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand what I explained to you.

• I am perfectly aware that Varney the Vampire was first published in 1845. The image you have has text at the bottom that was not in the original or the 1853 reprint. It comes from a modern reprint of the old book. See the "Arno PRess" on the bottom? The Arno Press version was made in 1970. The Arno PRess line is copyright in 1970. You can't have that here.
• I'm sorry, but you don't understand what fair use means, and you also seem to completely misunderstand Misplaced Pages. I can remove your images from articles if they are inappropriate, just like any other editor here can choose to do. Being an administrator has nothig to do with it. As far as removing the images themselves, unless you take care of these issues I will mark them as violating copyrights, unknonw permission, etc. so that others can remove them unless you can show that they can be here.
• "Someone releasing it into the public domain"...? I already saw that you wrote that, but i do not know where you came up with that idea. You need to be more specific. Who released it? Fif they take the photo? Who owns the kit in question and does that have a copyright on it? Did the rights owner(s) sign a license stating that it is in the public domain? These things are necessary.

I am putting this on your talk page too. DreamGuy 23:53, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, for the past on your page it helps with the chat. You may be right a few things and me not understanding Misplaced Pages is one of them...but I am learning quickly.

• Even if I am wrong about the Arno Press version you know very well that the limited use of book covers is considered fair use in an encyclopedia such as this, "It is believed that book covers may be exhibited on Misplaced Pages under the fair use provision of United States copyright law." I changed the tag to {{Bookcover}} just to be certain. I can have it there. You can mark them as you wish but in the end you will lose and the cover will stay.
• Do you have a problem with Wang Wei images or not?
• As for as how Misplaced Pages works, I know I don't have to answer up to every person wondering if the tag is right, but I'll find the page where the guys says it is for public domain, till then I'll change it to fair use.

--Evmore 00:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I moved these comments to your talk page because they didn't belong on your user page. Dbraceyrules 12:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• You didn't do anything to Varney the Vampire photo. You're just lying as always.
• You can tag the picture if you like but the administrators say it is fine. Keep it up and I'll have it protected.
• Same with the Vampire Killing Kit.
• I'll fix the Vampire page when I get back on, till then you can have edit wars with the other members. It sucks when you are wrong DreamGuy doesn't it? It's clear that everyone else knows it except you.

--Evmore 07:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, you can't just remove the copyright violation notices once they've been applied to images. This is a major violation of Misplaced Pages policies. Your reckless and deceptive behavior puts Misplaced Pages at risk for lawsuits. DreamGuy 07:09, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Lawsuits from whom?!? The owner gives permission. You just don't like it because you think it is silly. --Evmore 07:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're deluding yourself here. I did fix the Varney image. Apparently you didn;t even bother to check. I find it inconceivable tat an admin would really claim that your images are fine when they are clear violations and especially with your history of false edits. You cannot "fix" thje page because you are wrong, and the only people reverting it back to your way are people who have been frequently blocked for their edits. The problem is you know you are wrong and removing image tags proving it and refuse to listen. DreamGuy 19:11, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

sorry

aboutthe tag theng, and well, plenty of other crap. Gabrielsimon 00:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to delete your RfC

Why not? I see no use fighting anymore. I am sorry for ever certifying it. Dbraceyrules 00:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

a thught ( a polite one at that, please dont delete)

mythology does change with the times, to a degree, doesnt it? so its possible later mytholigeis are modernized, so to speak... Gabrielsimon 23:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Mythology does change with the times, but fiction is not mythology. Mythology is the study of stories about supernatural events and beings thought to exist and have importance to the functioning of the world. The only time fiction becomes mythology is when people don't realize it is fiction and treat it as some genuine real world belief. Yes, there is lots of modern mythology out there, but fiction is an entirely different animal, an any attempt to equate the too misses the whole concept. DreamGuy 23:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

 though it is said that every myth  has a grain of truth to it.  by which i am  treying to say, what if certain myths are  just aggradnzied versions of nearly forgoteen history? ( jus wonderin)

Gabrielsimon 23:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Some myths probably are.... although it is certainly untrue that every myth has a grain of truth in it, unless you mean philosophical truth, which isn;t the same thing as real world truth... but none of that has nothing to do with the fiction that the other editor is trying to force in there. By the way, what on earth are you doing on Vampire and Vampire fiction jumping in to revert my changes to join up in another edit war against me without even trying to talk about it? I thought you were supposed to stop that nonsense? Please go unrevert them. DreamGuy 23:16, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

i wanted to change things to how they were before you seemed to move the section without any sort of discussion ( as i saw it) to allow for somne discussion, no hatred intended. Gabrielsimon 23:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

consensus

The Authentic Matthew VFD has closed. The results were

• Delete - 21 (58%)
• Keep - 11 (31%)
• Merge - 4 (11%)

This was declared to have been no consensus, and therefore a new VFD has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (consensus).

Would you be prepared to re-add your vote there? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

about 1rr

i slept between imes when one change and the other were made, so i didnt realize anything was being done wrong. Gabrielsimon 21:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments from Talk:Otherkin

I think we need to take a cue from the Pseudocscience section of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. It states that completely bizare claims from nonreputable sources shouldn't be mentioned at all (NPOV does not mean giving equal time to every possible claim anyone makes... see the policy for more on this) and common claims that go against accepted knowledge need to be discussed within that framework. DreamGuy 21:15, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I just read the pseudoscience section, and I did not see that it says "completely bizare claims from nonreputable sources shouldn't be mentioned at all"? Can you elaborate? Friday 21:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

That part isn't the pseudoscience section, it's a paraphrase of the # 10.5 Giving "equal validity" section. DreamGuy 22:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

your accepotance of knowledge does not nessessarily make something accepted knowledge.Gabrielsimon 22:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying *my* acceptance, I am saying mainstream scientific acceptance... And, by the way, your argument applpies more directly to *your* unsourced opinions that you keep trying to insert into articles and supporting only with "that's the way it is" or "it's a family oral tradition". DreamGuy 22:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

dont change the subject, this is about you, not me.Gabrielsimon 22:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

No, actually, it's not. It's about you. It's about how you complain about me doing things when I am only following clearly stated Misplaced Pages policies. It's about you claiming you want to do better but not taking the time to read the policies in question. It's about you having such an incredibly stubborn idea that your bias isn't bias but the way things ought to be that you refuse to listen to anyone else and complain when they aren't pushing their side but just trying to come to a compromise in the middle. If I was really pushing my side the Otherkin article would start out something like "A bunch of raving lunatics who need psychiatric help claim to have animals and other species inside of them based upon their need to be highly dramatic and self-important because they can't get any self-worth in their pathetic, miserable lives any other way..." You're so far off on your side (werewolves and vampires actually exist, and even a mention that some psychiatrists call it mental illness would be horrible, etc.) that meeting in the middle looks like bias to you. DreamGuy 22:23, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

if it is lableled a spirutal movement (which is was for quite some time) then unless your willing to put in sceintific scheptisism into EVERY SINGLE article delaing with spirtuality, and religion, then youd best just back off. otherwise, start by introducing a scientific critisism section in the God article. Gabrielsimon 22:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

ps - what you dont know could fill several staduims.Gabrielsimon 22:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I am sounding like a broken record here, I know, but since it's apparent that you still haven't done so, I suggest you read and follow the Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability policies. DreamGuy 22:44, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Argh. I was just trying to ask a question about something DreamGuy wrote. I've now read 10.5 also, and I still can't see why you said "It states that completely bizare claims from nonreputable sources shouldn't be mentioned at all". Part of me wished it did say that. But I still don't see that it does. Friday 22:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I could have sworn that section was more specific that it is now. The policy is kind of spread out, maybe it was in the discussion or maybe it got edited... but see how the basic thrust there is that any person saying something doesn't make it a "side" that has to be given equal time? It's quite clear that between that section and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability that extreme fringe views simply can't be mentioned. DreamGuy 22:44, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think I see what you're saying. In the case of Otherkin, the only sources so far are extremely dubious. So the question some has asked was, can the article exist at all? We have articles on Scientology, for example, and they make ridiculous claims and they're not considered reputable. However, they're clearly large and influential enough to deserve an article. So we can't always leave out bizarre claims from nonreputable sources. But, we maybe should, in general, leave out bizarre claims from unknown, nonreputable sources. Friday 22:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Nobody denies that Otherkin as a movement exists... we have plenty of sources to show that many people self-identify with the concept. That alone rates an article, we just have to remain neutral about hwo it is explained. What we do not have are reputable sources for a lot of the bizarre claims made about them... We are perfectly within our rights to say that loosely organized individuals within the group claim such and such (sticking probably to the most basic beliefs, as within the community they argue a lot). We can cite their FAQs to their core beliefs without accepting the reality of them or especially their more bizarre conclusions... I think for NPOV reasons we probably need to touch on the idea that they make several dubious claims masked in pseudoscientific language that are simply at odds with all known empirical knowledge, such as some of the examples you cited. DreamGuy 05:02, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

that is why the religion section alpplies more then the psudoscence one. Gabrielsimon 23:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Apparently another sockpuppet

I see you blocked User:Existentializer as a sockpuppet of a frequently banned user. I think we have another sock of his now...

User:Ni-ju-Ichi, based upon his edit history, looks to be exactly the same guy... note how he reverts Vampire and Vampire fiction to same states he was edit warring over earlier (with same false claims of reverting "vandalism" -- although this time in abbreviated form) anmd also the preoccupation with Islam.

I'd appreciate it if you could undo his edits on Vampire and Vampire fiction if he starts warring over them and then blocking this new one... since he keeps coming back I think more severe steps, if any exist, need to be taken, as he has proven himself unwilling to work within the rules. DreamGuy 05:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've got my eyes on User:Ni-ju-Ichi. He does look like a possible sock, but I haven't made my mind up yet. I thought I was doing okay to nail the User:Existentializer sock. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

False Copyright Claims

When the copyright holder writes a statement like Brian Fleming did verifying that it is non infringing and providing a contact verification link and Doc Glasgow continues in spite of that, he's doing it knowingly. Read the discussion and you will see the copyright holder's statement.--Marcperkel 23:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but anyone can claim to be the copyright owner even when they are not. It happens all the time. Without clear evidence such claims must be treated skeptically. DreamGuy 00:04, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Otherkin captions

Bing. How about "perception of ...yadda... difference" for the captions in the otherkin article? Vashti 00:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Captions? Oh, subheads... uhm, perception is something actually through senses and not something internal to the brain, so it wouldn't really be accurate as I understand it. "Claims of", "alleged", or some completely other way of putting the subheads there would be better. DreamGuy 00:33, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure this helps

I'm not trying to say you're in the wrong, or that you don't have valid points. However, I think that you pointing out the ill behavior of a certain editor sometimes does more harm than good. Adding things to the RFC is one thing; I won't even presume to complain about that. But, adding comments to his and other people's talk pages seems to be only adding fuel to the fire. I think, as a purely pragmatic suggestion, you should maybe avoid that. I'm not trying to put pressure on you; I'm just another editor, feel free to take or leave my advice. Just thought I'd put my 2 cents here. Friday 00:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that nothing is helping. I am simply not letting him get away with being deceptive about what he is actually doing. HE needs to learn to work with other editors, and considering that he goes to articles I edit solely to revert my work, he needs to learn to work with me whether he likes me or not. By the way, he just did a second revert in an hour on Otherkin, clearly violating any pretense to following a 1RR. DreamGuy 00:58, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

you vanadlaize, i revert, you vandalize again, i revert again, see a parrtern forming? Gabrielsimon 01:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Only problem with that rationalization is that I did not in any way, shape or form vandalize. Your POV is so extreme that you think making something NPOV is not only bad but vandalism. It is situations EXACTLY like this that the 3RR and 1RR systems were meant to prevent. Stop lying to yourself and everyone else. DreamGuy 01:08, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

adding out of contextweasel words is vandalism. go away, find a better hobby then bothering me, leave me alone,and have a hoopy day Gabrielsimon 01:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you'd bother to read Misplaced Pages:VAndalism and the What Vandalism is Not section you'd know you were wrong. DreamGuy 01:17, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

(And then I went and edited that line to read: Actually, if you'd bother to read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism and the What Vandalism Is Not section you'd know you were wrong. DreamGuy 01:17, August 1, 2005 (UTC) But he reverted it back to the old version.)

suuure, telling me to read a red link is really going to help things. just leave me alone, ok? be hoopy Gabrielsimon 01:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

He saw the corrected link, and then reverted it back to the broken version, and then also when and continued to revert the article in question... I added that to his RfC, which he then reverted, added it to the talk page of his RfC, which he then reverted, and then reported him for violating 3RR. Some people just never learn I guess. DreamGuy 02:21, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Re: My RfC

You had mentioned you wanted my RfC deleted so everyone could move on. Well, it can't be deleted, but the people involved can agree that no further comments are necessary and vote it closed to new discussion. Unfortunately once most people get their two sense in they don't come back to close it, so not many people have voted for that yet. You could help out by doing that. DreamGuy 06:20, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Why did you "add comments for prosperity" after the editing phase had been closed. It is apparent that you reopened your own RfC. If you'd care to respond, please do so on my talk page. Take care, Dbraceyrules 01:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You wrote onb my talk page: " It is apparent that you reopened your own RfC." I'm sorry, but it's clear that you are just making false claims about wanting to work together and then not following through. My apologies for taking you at your word, I will know better in the future. DreamGuy 01:23, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason to get upset or accuse me of anything. I don't feel like fighting anymore, I really don't. It's just that I don't know if I can sign it or not. Beforeyou get mad, please explain if I can or not. I am really sick of this back and forth conflict. I was just inquiring about the problem. If you'd care to respond again, please do so on my talk page Dbraceyrules 01:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

And I still don't see why your so upset. Dbraceyrules 01:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, your upset and now you don't even respond to me. How about I just not add anything else to your RfC, and that can be a suitable compromise. Hopefully we just won't cross each others paths again, if that's what you want, wish there was a better way, though. I hope for a resolution. Dbraceyrules 02:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Dude, give me a chance to respond here, in case you haven;t noticed I have to go around undoing an certain editor removing my own comments to my talk page, restore my comments to his RfC page, add more evidence to his RfC page and file a 3RR report. So responding to you immediately was not an option. As far as upset, I saw what looked like you returning to old ways: Trying to claim you want a resolution but then going back on it. If you don't think you can sign the close section of my RfC then asking me if you can probably won't help. Sign it or don't sign it, I don't care at this point. DreamGuy 02:17, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Okay.Dbraceyrules 02:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Compromise

I added my signature to close the RfC. I will take signature off if:

You add POV or anger other users in the future. I had also stated that I'd be more than happy to revert my vote if I saw any evidence that he went against the agreement as seen on your RfC. Compromise was the only way here, but if I see anything rude by you, I'm will take my signature off and whatever you may do will be added as evidence on your RfC. Dbraceyrules 05:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

If you delete this message, I will also rescind my agreement, because that will prove that you disagreed to the stated agreement, as arranged by User:Solipsist and others. You may respond on my talk page if you want to discuss this notion further. Thanks for the cooperation.Dbraceyrules 05:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, but... You realize that rudeness and POV is in the eye of the beholder? Gabvriel right now is really worked up claiming today that I was rude to him and tried to put POV into an article when the other editors involved don't see it that way at all... So how am I supoosed to guarantee not to be rude and put POV into articles when I don't feel that I have ever put POV into any article in the first place and that I wasn't being rude most of the times I was accused of it? I will admit to being rude sometimes in the past when I felt people were being rude to me first, but you obviously see it differently.

And what are you taking about with Solipsist? What agreement are you talking about? The only agreement I saw is when I said that I should try even harder to remain polite (even in the face of total abuse, should it happen, and it frequently has) provided people stop following me around undoing my edits for no reason on unrelated articles and so forth for the sole purpose of trying to harass me... something I believe I have kept up my end of but that only you of the three complainants in the RfC has even tried to follow. I don't recall Solipsist putting in any suggested solution that the parties agreed to. I know Gabrielsimon and AI have agreed to absolutely nothing and if anything have gotten even worse, with both of them going through disciplinary actions right now.

And you also realize that if the RfC closes that you won't be able to go back and take your name off of it because it will be closed?

DreamGuy 05:22, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

As far as the last comment is concerning, I can only assure my agreement before the RfC closes. Solipsist stated the compromise right above the signatures of those closing the argument. (And yes, beleive it is very possible to change signatures, needing a strike-out and the reason it was changed). Gabrielsimon seems extremely upset because people are basically attacking him at all flanks. Only thing left is to ask: is it an accord or not?Dbraceyrules 05:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

True, sometimes POV etc., are in the eye of the beholder, but come on, DG, its pretty obivous most of the time. Don't tell people they are "bad editors," and please don't rudely address people like I've seen here. And above all, do not insult anyone's intelligence What I am asking is pretty simple. I thought we would have atleast accomplished something by my signing to close the discussion. I am really sick of fighting. Dbraceyrules 05:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

If it were truly obvious then most of these disputes would be pretty clear cut. I already agreed to what Solpsist said (the short statment you are apparently referring to above) by signing it. DreamGuy 06:00, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Just think twice before you add something like you did on elvenscout's page saying he was "embarassing himself" etc., and don't say things that generally cause anger. Is it an accord or not? Dbraceyrules 06:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

January 16, 2005 - August 1, 2005. In these last seven months I have managed to test out of IB, graduate from high school, leave school number two in the class, move back to Florida, get some scholarships, publish poetry and if this had lasted any longer (20 days), until my 18th birthday - what I am saying is that I could have been doing a whole helluva lot more than arguing for an encyclopedia that I don't even get paid for. Seven months in a conflict like this has been too long for me anyway. I have seen my edits go from a few dozen to almost 1,400 right about now. It is time for peace. Is it an accord or not? Dbraceyrules 06:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Scratch it, it is an accord. Let's forget we have met each other and start off on another foot. I have great ideas on the unicorn article, hopefully that will be a suitable test for both of us. Dbraceyrules 06:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The unicorn article? I think I just added that to my watchlist, like, earlier today. DreamGuy 06:48, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Note, I gonna add this to my talk page for my own "posterity". Have a nice life, Dbraceyrules 06:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

...

why cant you just leave me alojne? what twisted sense of vengance drives you to this? Gabrielsimon 05:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, can you understand that nobody is out to get you, and that you're bringing this onto yourself by your own behaviour these past few days? You're the one deleting comments, getting into POV disputes, deleting reports on your behaviour and forcing people to revert your edits. All this is making 'you look bad, not anybody else. Read my outside view on your RfC and consider my advice there. --khaosworks 05:48, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

i force no ones hand, i delete lies. if this sitessupposed to be abpout truth, then therer should be no problem with someone trying to preserve the truth of his already broken reputation. Gabrielsimon 05:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

But how can we determine if you're telling the truth if we can't see the evidence? It works both ways. By deleting those allegations, you're as good as saying that you're guilty of them. If you honestly can't understand that, I can't help you. --khaosworks 06:09, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

So anything that shows you in a bad light regardless of whether it is true or not is a "lie" because you say so and that justifies removing it? Let the admins decide if the #RR report is a lie or not. If you are right, they should find it out easily enough and discipline me for filing a false report and then everyone will see how badly mistreated you were. Of course if you are wrong you are just making things worse by reverting the very page where people report improper reverts. DreamGuy 06:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright comments Image:Mark 48 Torpedo testing.jpg

Hi. It seems I have mixed up the sources, and the images originate from the Australian Navy. In this case, the source images have not been in public domain. About my relicensing: As I understand it, Images in the PD can be used, and if modified can be given another copyright. (That is why there are CC and GFDL licenses, otherwise we could just use PD on Misplaced Pages). The arranging of the images (cutting, stitching together, adding lines, etc.) was not a huge job, but still took some time. And I think at least US courts have very low standards for adding artistic value, this compiled image being one example of it. Hence I added a free license so that the derivatives created by me would stay free. I do not wish to clame fame for this work, but merely to keep it free. In any case, this is no longer a point for this image, since the source images were not PD to begin with. Hope this clarified my point, please let me know if you have a different legal view. Happy editing. -- Chris 73 Talk 10:23, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry, but simply compiling images in a utilitarian way and adding lines for functional purposes in no way counts as adding artistic value for the purposes of granting a new copyright. DreamGuy 19:48, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Hi DreamGuy, another editor has complained that you've been reverting a lot at Vampire and may have violated 3RR. I haven't looked carefully at the diffs, so I don't know whether you have. I'm just leaving this note to let you know that there's concern about it, and that any violation could lead to a temporary block. Cheers, SlimVirgin 20:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The claim is absolutely false, as already declared by admins on the 3RR noticeboard page where it was discussed recently. The editor who reported it falsely claimed I violated 3RR "six or seven times" when admins and the facts show it's actually zero. The editor in question is also making severely deceptively claims against me elsewhere and breaking policy by trying to remove copyright violation notices on images he uploaded.

I would appreciate it if you did not post notes here with accusations like this until you have actually researched them. If you had bothered to do so you would see that I do not need a warning, and that I am already fully aware of the policy in question. DreamGuy 20:48, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude, DreamGuy. Even a glance at the edit history shows you've been reverting a lot. Whether you're in technical violation of 3RR or not, you're in danger of violating it, if only inadvertently; you've already been blocked for it; and another user has complained about you. A warning is therefore appropriate, though I apologize if it came off as condescending (as you wrote on my talk page). That was not intended. SlimVirgin 21:20, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you were far more rude to me by your comments and complete disregard for charges you had to know were false because you were already involved in the discussion about the pages on the 3RR noticeboard. I was only blocked for 3RR once a long time ago under circumstances that were quite unclear (and for which the admin involved admitted making some mistakes), so the claim that I would violate it because of that incident is also quite condescending. I am finding your insistence on giving a completely unneccessary warning based upon clearly false and bad faith charges to be completely out of line. DreamGuy 21:59, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to carry on arguing with you, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop leaving long messages on my talk page. I'll say only this: First, the medical section of Otherkin was as clear an example of original research as I've seen, and if you can't see it, I encourage you to re-read the policy page. Second, you moved or deleted the same section from Vampire at 23:10 July 24, 00:20 July 25, 22:04 July 25, 23:25 July 26, 17:09 July 27, 18:45 July 27, 23:53 July 27, 23:55 July 28, 17:13 July 29, 22:44 July 29, 20:26 July 30, 21:54 July 30, 05:12 July 31, 19:14 July 31, which is excessive. Perhaps you could say why you feel this is not a 3RR violation:

• 1st revert 20:26 July 30
• 2nd revert 21:54 July 30
• 3rd revert 05:12 July 31
• 4th revert 19:14 July 31

This kind of systematic reverting is strongly discouraged, and it can lead to inadvertent 3RR violations because editors lose track of their reverts. That's why I left a warning on your talk page which, I repeat, it's in your interests to heed. SlimVirgin 02:17, August 3, 2005 (UTC)