Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DreamGuy (talk | contribs) at 02:10, 9 January 2006 (→Aladin: my talk page is not a page for editors to argue with what other editors who posted here said). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Note: If you are here to leave personal attacks, false accusations of vandalism, a long tirade about why your cat photo or article about yourself should be left alone as you and only you wanted, nonsensical rationalizations of why vampires, ancient astronauts, werewolves, "creation science" and so on should be treated as completely real and so forth, do not bother, as I'll either just remove them right away or simply point you to the appropriate Misplaced Pages policy which you should have read in the first place.

Otherwise please add new comments below.

Thank you

DreamGuy, you are a published author? What kind, and what did you publish? I know wiki doesn't want you to be vain, etc, but I am asking for information, and that's what wiki is all about, I believe. Thanks. 63.226.28.130 17:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Possible sockpuppet?

I suspect that users 80.145.145.28 and 80.145.133.218 are the same person. "Their" behaviour is to go to certain pages including fringe linguistics theories and blank talk pages where other people protest the addition. I'm not sure if this is really sockpuppetry; maybe it's the same guy doing it from his computer at home and then in a different computer in college or at work, without intending to deceive. How should other editors deal with this, besides repeatedly reverting? Thank you. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Are you interested in becoming an adm.?Molotov (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

There's basically no chance I would be approved as an admin. DreamGuy 07:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I can relate personally, pratically none of the best editors are given any respect or recognition in my opinion. Seeing that you have survived massive amounts of vitriol against you, I think you have done Misplaced Pages a justice by staying here. Molotov (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

... by the way, you congratulations on your 5,000th edit! Molotov (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I know we've had differences in the past, but I just wanted to say thanks. I admire your efforts towards WP:NPOV. Friday (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Any article in particular you are talking about here? DreamGuy 04:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep. This edit is what I noticed. Friday (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yeah... I thought that one was pretty clear cut, especially since the Afrocentrist editor there and myself both agreed the link was inappropriate... not sure what the other guy was thinking. DreamGuy 04:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Chimera

Hello. Looks like some progress was made here. Septentrionalis made some concessions. I wonder if you could look at my proposed compromise wording for the "location" entry. (See latest comment uder Talk:Chimera#Page_protected.) Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 05:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has closed Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy with no action taken. →Raul654 22:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm glad to see that these baseless accusations were ignored as "utterly unpersuasive" by admins on a 5 to 1 decision (and note that the 1 dissent was only asking to look into it longer and not recommending any action against me). I am sorry that so many people wasted their time on a complaint that was created solely for revenge purposes and, for many of the complainants (User:Gavin the Chosen aka Gabrielsimon and three or four other usernames, User:Eequor and User:Vashti, especially), a transparent attempt to remove a major voice in support of NPOV on articles that they were trying to push their own agendas on. Hopefully now they will realize that their complaints are without merit and stop making biased edits (though it helps that Gabriel has been banned for two months already). DreamGuy 05:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Congrats also (although it was never really in doubt) I know we butted heads on occasion but your actions relating to GirlyVinyRFC/SqeaukBox thing confirmed my impression of your "decentness" and whilst I didn't get involved once the arbitation had started (SqueakBox had already lost the argument for himself by that point anyway) I kept an I eye on it just in case. --ElvisThePrince 17:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. DreamGuy 19:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer

I doubt it matters too - aparently a new user named Call of Duty is making edits similar to Lightbringer's, but without the personal attacks. We'll certainly see. --User:Scimitar 17:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I'm not sure, and can't be sure without an IP check. Again unfortunately, I'm not in a position that a request for an IP check will neccessarily be carried out. I'll drop a note off with one of the arbitrators; hopefully they can get things moving.--User:Scimitar 17:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the first comment you made on Lightbringer's talk page on the suggestion of another editor; just because it's true doesn't mean it should be said (WP:NPA). Hope you don't mind. --User:Scimitar 20:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think it would be a problem, but I just wanted to be sure. If I'm less than exact in my communication, I get all sorts of people mad at me ;) --User:Scimitar 21:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Regardless of what people say about your temper, you deserve this for your massive and tireless work towards NPOV. ~~ N (t/c) 22:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks... It's a never ending battle. DreamGuy 19:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Award

Indeed you deserve some recognition for your effort. Though your editwarring has been controversial you did contribute greatly for the academic quality and neutrality of wikipedia. --BorgQueen 23:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

And thanks to you also. "Edit warring" is another one of those POVs I just see changing it back to the way it's supposed to be and not just letting someone who is doing it incorrectly win out of apathy. All it tkaes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing, yada yada yada. Some people here seem to be more interested in some red tape that will maybe get something wrong fixed two months later, by which times there's already 50 more bad things to fix and a lot of readers who got bad info. That's my philosophy. DreamGuy 19:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Wicca Merge cleanup

Thanks for cleaning up my merge... I should have copyedited it before I dumped the cut & paste job into Wicca...--Isotope23 16:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Not a big deal... any step in the right direction is a good step. DreamGuy 19:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

user:Dark droid

Please see WP:RFM. Jim Apple 02:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt question

I came across your remark on Talk:Ancient Egypt. You might be interested in User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee. Fringe theories added by this user often aren't recognized as such because he edits a lot of low-profile articles where he goes largely unnoticed. You might be able to help out. Regards, — mark ✎ 19:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

OMG... that guy has been putting his nonsense into hundreds of articles... It's crap like this that makes me think Misplaced Pages is doomed to failure, because any nut with a lot of free time on his hands can go put his insane theories all over the place and it takes a group of people to track them all down and try to undo the damage.DreamGuy 05:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I said elsewhere; this is the most dangerous and disruptive kind of 'vandalism'. I discovered him in April this year, and warned a bunch of other editors. After some warnings which didn't work out, a lot of his contributions have been reverted on sight during May, but then he abandoned his account and started to contribute anonymously from 4.241.*.* IP's, and from then on it was only more difficult to track him down. What is worse, a lot of editors do not recognize his contributions as dangerous, probably because of his authorative tone and because he references his statements with a curious (and self-serving) mix of external links. It's very disheartening. I'm curious to know what you -as a winner of the NPOV award :)- would do in this case. — mark ✎ 19:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, honestly... Try to track him down as best we can for the good of the project, but then it's a tremedous effort and I'm already spending way more time here than I should be tracking things I currently track. I think the system is inherently flawed and that it will inevitably be filled with crap as the good editors give up. It's not like we are all independently wealthy and educated with lots of free time. DreamGuy 20:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand, just thought it was worth asking. I think I agree with you that this is an inherent flaw of the system. Currently working out what that means to me. — mark ✎ 20:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer Arbitration case

The Arbitration case against Lightbringer, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer, to which you contributed, has closed. The decision is that Lightbringer is hereby banned indefinitely from editing articles and talk-pages related to Freemasonry (the closeness of the relation is to be interpretted by any sysop as they see fit, regardless of the article's title), and is placed on personal attack parole for six months from now (to expire on the 24 of May 2006). If Lightbringer violates the Freemasonry ban, a sysop may ban them for up to a week, and after five such bans, for up to a year. If they violate the personal attack parole, a sysop may ban them for up to a week.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

He was already violating the temporary ban on editing that article and others like that during the arbitration throught the use of something like four or more sockpuppets. He'll be blocked soon enough again I'm sure. DreamGuy 04:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Norse mythology

Could you please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Norse mythology). A couple of editors are trying to force a guideline tag on it, even though it clearly did not reach consensus and violates existing guidelines. CDThieme 01:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot back

I know you've had dealings with this disruptive editor before. Well, he has made a new account, User:Chaosfeary. Please check his contribs and see if you agree that he is Enviroknot. Yuber 21:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I had dealings with Enviroknot, but then Chaosfeary from what I've seen so far (mainly on Poison ivy and comments on some admin pages) doesn;t appear to be the same guy. I could be wrong, and granted I did not check out any of the Islamofascist pages, but then I never checked those out with Enviroknot either. Personally, I think that if it were Enviroknot that once I contradicted him on the Poison ivy talk page he would have immediately started insulting me like he always did. DreamGuy 04:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

For historical purposes, it later turned out that Chaosfeary eventually did go on a huge spree of vandalism and personal attacks across several admins and editors, so it wouldn;t surprise me upon reflection to find out that he really was Enviroknot. DreamGuy 21:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Inkblot.gif

I noticed you uploaded Image:Inkblot.gif some time ago, and I was wondering where you got it. And I'm guessing the reason it's public domain is because it's really old, right? Phoenix-forgotten 21:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Wicca

Thank you for catching those new external links at the Wicca page. I missed them entirely in watching the article on my list. Slainté, P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 21:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

...and another thanks is owed to you. The recent anonymous editor (IP: 207.216.22.108) left a distasteful POV contribution to Wicca, which you fixed. It is appreciated. -P.MacUidhir (t) (c)

Replying to your message, as your e-mail was not available to me.

Good afternoon DreamGuy. I would like to reply to the message you left me since I could not do so privately in e-mail. Please feel free to delete this whenever you are through with it. I rather think posting those links in commercial and personal spaces are acceptable and based on the rules of Misplaced Pages are not out of line. If posting them on all sub-links of Savannah as points of interest is wrong, I am sorry, but it seemed pertinent to me, especially since there is hardly any other information on those pages. I did not “spam” (as you say) any links on pages that were not somehow directly related to the subject of the links. Why you chose to pick those two links, out of many commercial and non-commercial links on the pages to dispute, I have no idea. I am sorry if you have a problem with ghost books but this one is directly related to Savannah, Georgia so it seems to me that this link would be the last one you would erase off the Savannah page. Having reviewed the “spamming” page link it seems to me that spamming would be on a much larger scale that the links I posted. If you would like I can move all of them to the bottom, if this appeases your mind. I also linked them in the external links section, this is not like I cut into every paragraph of the articles and inserted the link. I actually thought it might be of interest to people who happen to enjoy ghosts. I am not even in the employ of Cobblestone Tours or even James Caskey himself, I just thought (as a local Savannah resident who has read the book, taken the tour, and is a fan) that I should point more people who are interested in this sort of thing to the stories and experience. However, feel free to remove links that are not pertinent, if you so choose, but articles related directly to Savannah’s ghosts, I feel, are not in that category. In the future though, if you would like to continue this discussion, feel free to send me an e-mail, this information should be available to you as I filled it out when I registered.

I would also like to add that this is my first time using Misplaced Pages so if there is a problem here it may just be that I am not an initiate yet.

Sincerely,

Margaret

You added two different links to the same website to thirty different articles as your only edit, all in half an hour. It'd be difficult to find a more clearcut example of spam than that. DreamGuy 18:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Note on Mummy page

Hello. Thanx for the message about the Mummy page. I have just started getting familiar with the code, and obviously I need to be careful. Regarding a different page, the Horemheb page, I happened upon the cartouches in a photo, and found that the real ones, intermix the "Blocks" of hieroglyphs, which complicates accuracy. I tried to explain it on Talk:Horemheb and tried the regular curvy line (water) n, but it didn't appear correct, visually. So I put in the Crown N (for the North, Delta (crown) ). Its accurate, but complicates the order. like I say, the blocks are intermixed, in his Cartouche.. But thanks; I'll look at the Mummy page...Michael McAnnis, YumaAZMmcannis 02:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC against Roylee

Hi DreamGuy. If you have some time, please check out Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Roylee and endorse or comment as you see fit. — mark ✎ 10:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Suspicions Drop

I had suspicions on this page until I read some of your readers' discussions. Enjoy your page.--Mac Simms 17:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You had your what? Suspicions on what? Enjoy my page what? This comment comes from out of nowhere, I've never heard of you, and I have no clue what you are trying to say.

Also, you went and edited someone else's comments on this page -- granted, you were trying to correct someone else's spelling, but A) this is a talk page, spelling doesn't matter, B) it was in British English and was spelled perfectly correctly for where the editor was from, C) Please just don't edit other people's comments. DreamGuy 03:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Winged Bull

Sorry I put the message on the wrong page, but I'm out of wikipedia practice. Frankly, I'm not going to be upset if you delete the Winged Bull. If the permission I got isn't authoritative, then so be it, and go ahead and remove the pic. Mind you that the article will be weaker without the image. 05:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Christmas article RE: Mithraism

I appreciate your reasons for not wanting to link to a religious article, but I was bothered by the phrase "information that takes the side of a biased source." Setting aside the question of whether "bias" as such immediately invalidates information that happens to agree with it (that's a whole 'nother barrel of fish), it's hard to find a NON-biased source on this. I was doing my own research on this theory, and it was a frustrating experience for me having to read the same talking points about Mithras spawning Christianity or Christianity spawning Mithraism in it's late form. It seems like everyone's out to either prove one or the other by repetition of vague arguments. The reason I linked to the letter was because, despite what some would see as an incentive to undermine the Mithras theory, he makes good argument and provides references, which is more than most will do. I didn't think it fair to just repeat the references verbatim, I figured the guy deserved credit for actually reasoning through it. The article Wiki links to, "The History of Christmas" makes all kinds of assertions about Mithraism without documenting any sources at all. It seems like everyone's regurgitating the same main points about Mithraism without documenting them, and that this fairly reasonable argument provided a welcome balance to this.

At some point I'd like to write something more thorough myself, but that will have to wait until after finals :)

Oh, and as for my summary...I think what I wrote was rational, and doesn't really establish either side. It wasn't lifted from the letter at all, it was just the truth...we don't have any (as far as I know) earlier sources about Mithraism than those written by its Christian opponents, which kind of makes it hard to figure what they actually believed and when, and more specifically when Dec. 25 was established as the birthday of Mithras. The belief system was syncretistic, and it did change from its Persian roots, and I haven't been able to find anything documenting the process of this change...just the results, which is frustrating. If we DO have earlier sources or well-informed research arguing the other side...by all means...add them -- I would very much like to know. Like I said, this may merit its own article.

How should I interpret your removal of my apology without comment?

As an acceptance of it, or a rejection? Pcb21 Pete 11:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice rfc

Hi DreamGuy

Your comments at deeceevoice's RfC are requested. deecee has refused to respond so far.

Thanks

Erik Beckjord

Hi there. We've both made edits to the Erik Beckjord. The article is now up for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Erik Beckjord, and I think your input would definitely be of value. Thanks. --DanielCD 15:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Also: I am going to attempt a re-write of the article. Any assistance you could give as far as reputable references would be appreciated. --DanielCD 15:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe it got nominated for deletion out of fear that the guy would disrupt Wikipeida, how insane. You already picked up the refeences I had, as they were actually quite easy that I found them with a two second Google search yesterday. Not much else I can say about the guy encyclopedically. I only heard of him yesterday after he started posting nonsense edits and attacks in various places. DreamGuy 05:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Wolf Woods

Just though I would let you know that The Wolf Woods is an encyclopedia website. Or at least as much of an encyclopedic source as you can get on the subject of werewolves. It's limping on after some Therian Label Seekers made it their target for flame/raging, but it's got some good information on it. Such as the Text to The Lay of Melion, Bisclavret, The Volsunga Saga, as well as articles on Porphyria, Ergot, The mental desise of Lycanthropy, The Beast of Gevuadan, The Wendigo. It has information of Werewolf books and films, proverbs, accused werewolves, terminology, International names for werewolves and even several pages on non-transforming run of the mill wolves, ect..

And yes, Beckjord is a psychopath. I got no opinion as to what to do with his page, but I do know that he's just loving the attention he's getting. Someone made the mistake of telling him the old saying of "Don’t read your press weigh it." and he's been rampaging ever since. VilaWolf

Thank you

Thank you for your work on reverting all the additions of people.noteroom.com and their associated removal of valid links. Keep it up. --PTSE 22:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Hi DreamGuy. I posted a response on the Admin Incidents board. I'd like to hear what you think. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Another_spammer_gaming_the_system

You're damn hard to get along with but you still deserve a barnstar

I award DreamGuy the Editor's Barnstar for his merciless efforts to keep spam, vandalism, subtrivial fictional references, fantasies presented as facts, unsourced non-sense and Encyclopedia Mythica crap out of Misplaced Pages. It's a messy job but someone's got to do it. Thank you. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice NPOV violations

Hi DreamGuy, CoYep, and SuperBleda,

If you have specific instances of deeceevoice's violation of NPOV, NOR or CITE could you post them to the deeceevoice rfc talk page? They are outside the scope of the original RfC and can't really be added at this point. Clear, indisputable violations make the best examples. It was a mistake not to include thse in the first place, if deeceevoice tones down her language but persists in content violations, little progress will have been made. -Justforasecond 18:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

External links on ghost page

Hi DreamGuy, Thankyou for repointing the external link to the actual internal page on the haunted castle web site as opposed to the home page...should have thought of that :-) Rgds Collieman

Holmes

Actually, if you look at my edits, you'd see that I linked to a page about the Servant Girl Annihilator, as the reporters of the time referred to him. And if Cream was only accused of one murder in the US, he can't be described as having definitely committing more.Shsilver 03:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ugh... Did you even read what I wrote to you? In my note to you I mentioned that you did eventually link to the case, but under the less common name. For something you hadn't heard of a day ago you shouldn't be trying to tell me what the papers called him based upon one source you found. Furthermore, Cream WAS accused of more, he was only CONVICTED of one, and I just got done telling you that... Please take the time to read these cites and explanations completely before you go off half-cocked deleting things froma rticles just because you never heard of them and replying to me when the note you are replying to already answered the points you are tryig to argue. DreamGuy 16:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Nostradamus

Could you please look at Talk:Nostradamus. I believe your superb NPOV editing skills would be helpful here. Thank you. --BorgQueen 03:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I got a headache just skimming it... Ouch, it's pretty bad. I'll see what I can come up with, but first order of business is plopping a tag on it. DreamGuy 16:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Glad you noticed the seriousness of matter. User:Theodore7 is constantly pushing his POV to a number of articles completely disregarding consensus, including Astrology, and claiming Isaac Newton was an astrologer without giving any source, etc., and already violated 3RR in more than one article. --BorgQueen 06:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

capitals in Freemasonry pages

this thread consolidated, & moved to Freemasonry's Talk page

DreamGuy, I didn't do any of this thread's moving out of malice, wanted it in one place for all of our consideration. Did the same on my talk page.

Natasha Demkina

I have done an (almost total) bare-bones rewrite of the Natasha Demkina article and placed it at User:BillC/sandbox. I haven't written anything about it to Talk:Natasha Demkina yet. I'd appreciate it if you could give it a look over. Regards, BillC 17:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

In reference to the Nostradamus article

Instead of reverting, I think I speak for most the editors working on the article when I say I'd like for you to at least talk about changes on the talk page instead of ignoring any debate there and following your own opinion. I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just saying this would be more helpful, since everyone agreeing is going to be hard enough without people not even taking part in the disscusion. --Joewithajay 03:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny, I DID talk about the changes on the talk page, but the POV-pushers ignore it and keep reverting it, so don't even bother "not accusing" me of anything. The problem is, the astrologer who wants to make Nostradamus sound like he really did predict the future can write out long (and frequently incoherent) rants, but that doesn't mean that he has a case in the word at all. NPOV policy is not something you can just ignore, or "debate" away. You need to follow it. Period. DreamGuy 20:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Dragon (disambiguation)...

I noticed you made this a redirect. Any objections to me reinstating it as a proper disambig? I really think that the mythological definition of "Dragon" really deserves a proper article without such a lengthy discussion of other things that happen to be named after it. elvenscout742 20:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

replied on your pageDreamGuy 20:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Your solution sounds a little too complicated. My idea was simply to move all the disambiguation content to a disambiguation page called "Dragon (disambiguation)". After all, when people say dragon, they usually mean the mythological creature. The current article is primarily on that concept but features some out-of-place disambiguation content. I suggest we change things to conform to something a little more like what we have with "Shogun" and "Shogun (disambiguation)", along with most other such cases. elvenscout742 22:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how there is anything complicated about it. Simply moving all the disambig info and then trying to write a new Dragon article creates a FORK file, as the info that would be on Dragon is currently on European Dragon. We don;t need to create yet another article to repeat the same info. DreamGuy 22:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Seems like we both misunderstood each other. I say we DELETE sections 3 and four of "Dragon" and put them on the former disambig called "Dragon (disambiguation)" - which is currently a redirect, and the reason I consulted you was because you were the one who made it so. I have no problem with your suggestions about "European dragon", though I still think that any real articles that are left should be expanded, as this is probably the most commmon creature in mythologies from around the world, and current coverage is woefully incomplete. elvenscout742 22:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Just so that I am clear here, as I don't know from the above if I explained it well enough, I'm all in favor of getting the poorly written and assembled disambig stuff off of Dragon (especially since so many people try to use it as a dumping grounds for trivial fictioncruft), but I think we would need to move European dragon over to Dragon as it is far more encyclopedic than what is currently there and otherwise risks becoming just another WP:FORK. I think we need to put in move requests and go for it... especially since European dragon would naturally seem to overlap Norse dragon both being in Europe, and European dragon is mostly just overall dragon things (though some info from other cultures should be added with links to expanded info). DreamGuy 18:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant, although I'd advocate either merging ALL dragon articles (Chinese dragon, etc.) into one article, or keeping Dragon as a culturally neutral article and having several separate articles linked to from it. I think we'd do well to avoid any Eurocentricity in the main article. Anyway, the first order of business is turning Dragon (disambiguation) back into a disambig page. I'll do that now. Since you appear to be online as I type this, do not interfere - I can handle it. elvenscout742 19:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's practical to merge all the dragon articles, as they are too many and too long. I don't really see a problem with the European dragon (along with links to the others) being the primary article, providing we tag links to other main articles on the others, as the most common meaning and most notable references of the word always gets precedence, wihch would be the European ones in this case. DreamGuy 19:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Mythology...

As much as I'd like to see Codex Sinaiticus get blocked for these crimes against Misplaced Pages, he technically stopped after two reverts, then posted a notice at the top, and has since reverted that once. Does that still count? elvenscout742 23:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ohhh.... I didn't specially look at the last ones, as I couldn't revert them without going over myself... but then if he can introduce an unrelated change I can undo it without going over myself. One way or another between the two of us we can get rid of his edits and force him to leave it the right way or get blocked. The totally disputed tag was clearly inappropriated, as the article most certainly is not "totally" disputed and his only dispute comes from not even bothering to read the article and wanting to push his POV. DreamGuy 23:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, but he's not stupid enough to simply revert four times, and I'm not going to get my hands dirty in a lengthy edit war. I say the best thing for the two of us to do is to let diplomacy resume. If people come by and see the tag, they will get involved, and if we play our cards right and don't start being stubborn and flaming him, they will side with us, and we will win. elvenscout742 23:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but the guy can;t get away with this nonsense... you don't throw a totally disputed tag on something because you can't get your way on one sentence on the whole article. He's just trying to get around the rules and it's not oging to fly. DreamGuy 23:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

But we can't do anything without participating in a revert war. I've seen what that looks like on a history page. He'll get what's coming to him if we just get some other Wikipedians who know what they're talking about on this. elvenscout742 23:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

blocked users logging in

On User talk:Gimmiet you said, "That account was blocked I thought, so I don't know how he signed on recently to remove the talk page pointing the stuff out." Blocking doesn't stop a user from logging in - they can still use their watchlist and preferences and stuff - and blocked users are allowed to edit their own user_talk pages. So, nothing unusual happening there. We could protect User talk:Ketrovin to prevent him from editing it, if there is a persistent problem, but it doesn't seem necessary yet. FreplySpang (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Beckjord...

I'd just like to say that despite what he'd like to think, I don't want to be associated with this vandal. I'd really prefer to put the past behind us. elvenscout742 12:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Satanic Ritual Abuse

DreamGuy, I am inviting you to my talk page to discuss the blatant lack of NPOV of Satanic Ritual Abuse. You feel that it is NPOV sufficiently strongly to have removed my ((NPOV)) tag from the top, which I have just restored. You have also imputed that I am an anonymous person while shielding yourself behind a cloak of anonymity. Your participation in making SRA a better article is appreciated. clarka 12.27.2005 1500

You put a user name on your post, but you are not logged in under that name, just an IP address... and wtf did this sentence mean that you then removed ". I am not at all anonymous and should this discussion dip below a certain point of civil discord, you will no longer be anonymous either." -- Should I take that as a threat that you will try to find out who I am for harassment purposes? The fact of the matter is that your insistence upon trying to push a POV in that article doesn not mean you get to throw a NPOV tag on it when you don't get your way. Several real editors have removed your edits on sight, and you claimed that you'd remove the tag itself if there was clear consensus, and there is, so apparently you lied. DreamGuy 01:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Mythology

I've made a lengthy suggestion at Talk:Mythology#Etymology and usage — some analysis and a suggestion. I would appreciate your input. Thank you. JHCC (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; see my reply there. JHCC (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A purely technical note

Just as a favor, please don't substitute a semicolon (;) for an apostrophe ( ' ) when typing contractions. Nothing personal implied; it's just disconcerting to read "don;t" when you mean "don't". Thanks. JHCC (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's just a common typo, not some conscious decision to try to purposefully play with your head. Don't get bent out of shape. DreamGuy 21:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Didn't think it was conscious, and my shape remains resolutely unbent. Cheers. JHCC (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No, posting to request someone not make accidental typos on a talk page most assuredly is bent way all out of shape, not to mention quite obnoxious. Please desist from making pointless comments such as that that do nothing helpful. DreamGuy 21:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Myth and Mythology...

Which consensus? Some user who had in my memory never editted either article before just came along and messily forced the content of Myth into Mythology and made the article a redirect. Try looking at the old Interwiki links on Myth - all completely different to the ones on Mythology, showing that Wikipedians on all the other Wikipedias seem to disagree. Also, all of those have Interwiki links back to Myth, which is awkward. elvenscout742 14:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Mythology#Myth/Mythology proposal for the reasons behind the proposed article split. Thanks. JHCC (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This is all being discussed on Talk:Mythology already, where you will discover that consensus was clear. Posting here is nothing more than an annoyance that serves no purpose, other than for you to attempt to criticize in multiple locations. Please stop posting to my talk page until you have something pertinent to add here. DreamGuy 21:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I made my post here as a purely as a courtesy, in case you wanted to comment (as, in fact, you did). I apologize if you found it annoying or harrassing; such was certainly not my intention. JHCC (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Martial Law

I have no idea what Martial Law's deal is, but pointing out that someone doesn't make sense and is acting like they are 12 isn't likely to improve the situation, and is rather un-civil. Try to guide the ones like that with kindness, not a stick: it often works better. Not that I don't understand your frustration. But at least he's not edit-warring the article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You start with kindness, and then the ones who don't respond to that and instead get worse and worse get beat off with the metaphorical stick. People who fail to understand even the most simple policies and don't even try have to be given up on at some point, and after him spamming Talk:Bigfoot, my talk page, the talk page of several editors, an admin village pump page or two and Jimbo Wales' talk page with the same complaint, he STILL ignores all the replies while lending support and encouragement to the spammer/abuser beckjord. Enough is enough. From my post he either gets the clue that his nonsense won't be coddled or he gets pissed off and takes action that gets him banned. Either way more accomplished that way, since the carrot has been shown not to work at all. DreamGuy 00:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a problem that barely needs solving, though: he's so incoherent people are hard-pressed to tell he's even supporting Beckjord. Attacking someone in hopes that it will get them pissed off and eventually banned is not how it should be done. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I only go by what works, and I have a lot more success dealing with these people. The policies here and the admins who run them are very, very slow to take any sort of effort to prevent people from messing up articles and talk pages. Any real conversation on Talk:Bigfoot as well as progress to actually improve the article is all wasted while we sit through incoherent, rambling posts. Misplaced Pages is not a babysitting service, nor is it therapy, it's meant to be an encyclopedia. Somebody has to tell these people to stop wasting our time and theirs, as they obviously don't get it any other way. Either they fly straight, burn out, or the third option which I forgot above but is probably the most likely outcome: give up and go to a site more conducive to their kind of activity, like some messageboard or something. All he's doing is talking gibberish, so he'd be much happier someplace where people like that congregate. It's the best thing for everyone involved. DreamGuy 00:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hope I'm not butting in here, but I will anyway. The "twelve-year-old" remark may have been just on the wrong side of WP:CIVIL, but I have to support DreamGuy's approach here; sometimes, telling it like it is gets the best results. Martial Law doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense, and it does seem like he is completely ignoring all commentary that he doesn't agree with. Martial Law may think he's doing everyone a favor by "preventing wars" and acting as Beckjord's unsolicited advocate, but the truth of the matter is that he is just as clueless about WP:NPOV/WP:V/WP:NOR and about the general nature of Misplaced Pages as Beckjord is.

I hope that Bigfoot is getting the right amount of admin oversight. I'd hate to have this turn into another Otherkin. android79 02:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Bigfoot really actually seems to be doing pretty well. The big problem with Otherkin was that the first admin who jumped in did so without taking the time to look at the situation there or elsewhere with some problem editors and made a very bad judgment call, prolonging the problem until she no longer could deny that she picked the wrong side and other admins came in to help out. I'd still resent her actions, but then her naivity and threats to ban me for no reason led to her having to deal with the primary bad editor repeatedly for months, and that's certainly more punishment than she probably deserved, heh. DreamGuy 03:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

thanx

If I didn't think barnstars were so insipidly stupid, I'd award you one for dealing with User:Evmore and the situations created by the same. I don't have the patience for that. -- Krash 06:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I cited the wrong page...

WP:AER is for arbitrators only. I was trying to be more specific than WP:ANI, but that might be the right place.--SarekOfVulcan 23:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Telling me that a page I never posted to is for admins only and thus can't post to doesn't mean anything to me. What's your point? DreamGuy 00:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now, it's regarding your earlier reverts on the Lightbringer sockpuppet thing. I reported direct to an admin who dealt with some of his previous socks, so the actual listing there doesn't matter really. WP:ANI might work too, they all know me there. Half of them want to kill me, but they know I catch sockpuppets and spammers all the time. DreamGuy 03:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Dads in Family Court - Child support

Obviously, you have not taken the time to review the content of the yahoo group for Dads in Family Court. It is a moderated group. It is also the usual means most people affected by child support contact each other. I'm not a promoter of that group. I have my own site. I just have had time to review the content. When you cut back the external links to just governmental, you in essence just promoted the enforcement of child support, which is not npov for that page. That was like a stomp on non-custodial parents. Do you think wikipedia should only host links for enforcement links? — Dzonatas 02:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I had it in my edit comments, but I'll say it again: Yahoo Groups are inherently nonencyclopedic and self-promotional. If you can find a reputable website with information on the "POV" you would like to see represented, make a suggestion, but the page was cluttered with spam before. DreamGuy 02:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Your right that there was spam. However, among the many organizations related to the topical, there are reputable ones. DiFC is one of them. Just because an organization doesn't use glamour to tout reputablity doesn't mean that they aren't one. The use of Yahoo Groups may seem like pair of old worn-out second-hand jeans, but that doesn't mean the wearer is second-hand. Many organizations do not have the funds to put up the costs for the network bandwidth needed for distribution, so they use yahoo groups. It is obvious you still have not researched the content of the distribution. If you treat this group as nonencyclopdic material, do an equal justice to every related link on every page. That would include every form of distribution: magazines, books, news articles, minutes, papers, and even websites (if you want to get into the technicalities http distribution). While your effort to reduce spam is welcome, your selection of material to cut is off balance. Where did it "inherent" such a nonencyclopedic source? But for your question, consider the activity and and the material posted - it is reputable. They create secondary sources, which is very highly valued for an encyclopedic source. Further, I see you reverted twice in one day. No need to start a lame edit war. — Dzonatas 12:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yada yada yada.... It's a Yahoo Group, come on, get real... Your arguments that I do an unequal justice blah blah blah is just hot air. You are part of the group, you want to promot your own group, so yo are spamming a site that has no business being listed here. Period, end of story. DreamGuy 21:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Home Book Store

I'm suprised you're reverting but not dropping into the user's talk page any warning, or am I too quick?? vcxlor 06:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I put a warning on the account he created, but not the IP address he abandoned... Hold on, let me reply on your talk page. DreamGuy 06:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, clearly you know what's going on - wish more did the same!!

I do hope I didnt get in the way of keeping up with it... May your new year be short on vandals gooks and similar, and you have time to enjoy it!vcxlor 06:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The image

The images are not copyrighed. The book is from the Communist days and it is not copyrighted. It also doesn't have an ISBN number. Please add the image back to the article and remove its status. --Anittas 09:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not how copyright works. ISBN doesn't mean anything. It has a copyright even without a copyright being listed. Please educate yourself on copyright laws before trying to claim something has no copyright. DreamGuy 21:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it has no copyright because it has no ISBN; I said it has no copyright because it's from 1987, when we had Communism, and there is no copyright tag. The book is not copyrighted. --Anittas 23:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make a difference. Copyright doesn;t require a copyright tag, and communists certainly can have copyrights. DreamGuy 02:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't get it. The copyrights, if any, was held by the Socialist Republic of Romania. When the Communist government was overthrown, all copyrights became void. --Anittas 03:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Skull (symbolism)

Hi, just a heads up if you revert again you'll be in violation of the 3RR. I realise it can be frustrating but try and stay cool and discuss on the talk page. Btw, you might want to check out: Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/1_01_2006_Skull_(symbolism) - FrancisTyers 23:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's clear from the talk page discussion that they are unwilling to follow standard Misplaced Pages policy of labeling perceived problem areas on the talk page or the article itself and instead insist upon vandalizing it. This is a clear case of vandalism, as it's blanking, and any claims they had to it being a content dispute went out the window when they themselves removed the version that had the supposed problem areas labeled with citation tags. IF they continue to vandalize, I will continue to revert them, as the 3RR policy does not cover vandalism, and that's very definitely what's going on here.

Thanks for the heads up on the ridiculously deceptive mediation attempt. Not sure where he got the idea that I was a sysop and trying to threaten anyone. "Vandals of Misplaced Pages, phear my 733t sysop powers, you will be permablocked and reduced to your component atoms!" Would be nice though. What's most disturbing to see is that this Soo guy has been around since March and has well over 10,000 edits. First up, I'm a pretty chronic user here throught most ever day and am not anywhere near that even with an extra bunch of months, and second up, how can he not know that what he is doing is wrong after being here that often, and third, for crying out loud, imagine how much damage he's caused all over this project with screwed up thinking of his. DreamGuy 02:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate that, could you please check out the talk page, I'd like to sort this out without having an edit war. - FrancisTyers 02:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, I've consulted the relevant policy WP:VAN and it seems that his edits don't count as vandalism. Check out the policy and let me know if you think i've misinterpreted it. - FrancisTyers 02:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've already explained on the talk page of the article in question why it is vandalism. Wetman himself took steps to satisfy his complaints by tagging the article, but the editor showed that that was not his real desire, he simply erased all of it. That's blanking, which is vandalism. It's also an attempt to get around the earlier vote for deletion which failed.

Incidentally, are you just some random person or are you the mediator? DreamGuy 03:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I am/was both a random person and the mediator. If that helps ;) Although I see I've replied too late. I would also point out that "erased all of it" is false. He certainly didn't erase all of it and he wasn't acting in bad faith and as such it does not constitute blanking under WP:VAN.

• Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.
• Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Misplaced Pages.
• Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them—most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you wrote removed, moved to talk, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism.
• Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism.

Agentsoo claimed he was making the article better.

• The article is now considerably better. Perhaps some of the older material could be reworded, sourced, and reinserted, but per se this version is good.

I can see you feel stronly about this and so I'll leave it at that. Whatever way you look at it he wasn't vandalising. By the way, good show on the {{sockpuppet}} tag on User:JonONeill, it might be worth chasing this up before he creates too much of an edit history for that user. If you need any help in this, let me know. Thanks, - FrancisTyers 02:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dennis Rader

Sure, I'll keep watch on this article. What BigBug is doing is quite annoying. Thanks. —Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 05:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Normally I don't bother pointing it out, since users making 3RR reports tend to be new, but I know better from you.  :) I read this one and thought I ought to point out that if you do the reports the right way they get acted upon faster. Feel free to ignore the advice if it irritates you. Wikibofh_(talk) 05:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I was prepared to be offended until I saw what you meant. When there are good edits between them that it screws up. Never even thought of that, and nobody ever brought it up to me before. Thanks... God that's a pain though, there should be a faster way to report these... I seriously cringe at the thought of doing these reports as they take forever as it is. DreamGuy 05:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• I hear you, and agree. The problem for me is that compare versions doesn't allow me to launch it in another tab (firefox), so I have to open history in about 5 windows and figure it out. It's also why it doesn't get done that way very often. Like I said it's a pet peeve of mine, no reason for you to pet it unless you're feeling good some days. Regrettably, it's one reason I don't patrol 3RR to often. It's too hard to go through and do all the work to see if it was really 3RR. Wikibofh_(talk) 05:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like, as others would, to see a photo from when he was confessing to his crimes. This is a sample:

What is your opinion on this? εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 18:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that the copyright notice you placed on it is deceptive. The license states: "This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media" -- I see no reason to believe that it was "released" by anyone to "promote" anything. It's a copyrighted news photo. It'd be nice to use photos (though one less blurry would be nice), but the licensing has to be correct and permissable. DreamGuy 00:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

News camera photos usually are blurry, I think the license confusion is due to a minor error I did while I was scrolling the options. Uploading files is quite difficult on Misplaced Pages. I really, really find it hard that people in the world are as evil as Rader. Aside from this, I hope everything is going well for you. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 01:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Affair of the Dracula edit

So you reversed me, and claim that there ARE stories of blood drinking sidhe.

I'm not an absolute authority on Irish folklore, being more familiar with older mythology, so I'll bite. Could you please direct me to books or web pages mentioning blood draining sidhe? (please, no redcaps, they are violent, but don't drink it, or kelpie style monsters, those don't really belong with the daoine sidhe, even the greatly debased ones mentioned in the 1700's and 1800's, and they actually eat their victims, nont contenting themselves with bloodsucking) --Svartalf 12:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Pull out your copy of Briggs' Encyclopedia of Fairies (or get one if you haven't got one) and open it to Baobhan Sith. Similar references can be found in a great number of other sources. The blood drinking may or may not have been a regular feature of the original folklore of th British Isles (it's a fairly obvious motif anyway so could independently develop anywhere), but certainly by the time of Dracula these stories were around, perhaps from a blending of continental vampire legends with local myths. The reference in the article to the concept is fairly straightforward and uncontroversial, saying only that Stoker might have been influenced by them. I can so no reason to remove it. DreamGuy 21:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, reference noted and will check ASAP. :) I just deemed that mention more than suspect, because many people tend to think Stoker had all manners of Celtic influences, just because he was born in Dublin. While he certainly was exposed to some Irish folklore, we have little indication he delved deep in the subject, being more interested in classical studies and occult lore than folklore and obscure Scottish legendry. --Svartalf 22:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure the reference would have been obscure at all. Briggs mentions two very well known and well-read books referencing the concept, and based upon the nature of it may have fallen under stnadard occult lore as well. People from modern times assume anything they haven't heard of was obscure back then too, but it doesn't work that way. DreamGuy 22:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Evolution

Just incase you don't get to see my talk page in a while, this is what I posted in reply to your message:

It was not false at all. I have a very reasonable doubt of evolution. I am not bias. And please comment back and let me know what part of it you believe to be false. And let us not argue about our different beliefs, but reason about them so that we may come to one conclusion that my statement is true or that it is false. JNeal 02:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You claimed that scientists agreed that evolution would be falsified unless people found tons of intermediary fossils, which is false, and you also claimed that NO intermediary fossiles were found, which is EXTREMELY false. Don't edit the article, we don't need people there putting highly biased and incorrect info. DreamGuy 05:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I never said that "scientists agreed" on anything. And I never used the word falsified. I said that "Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links,’ transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to PROVE the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species." No paleontologist denies that there are gaps in the fossil record: places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead.

When I said, "Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated.", I was quoting Grant R. Jeffrey from his book, The Signature of God. JNeal 15:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Valhalla legends

Why do you even care if this article is there? What about "Be bold"? It might not attract the interests of *that* many people, but the community has provided interest for an approach of 2,000 people. I'm sorry if it's a "club" based around a "video game" that you don't really care about, but I think that your deletionist attitude undermines the "be bold" guideline of WP. Robert Paveza 07:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability is much more important than being bold. See also what Misplaced Pages is not. Friday (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article needed some cleaning up. I've changed it: it speaks about the accomplishments of members now, as opposed to internal (non-notable) details. I've tried to be as factual as possible. I may have been overzealous in removing material that felt vain. I'd be interested in your opinion of the revised version. harrym 11:27, 06 January 2006 (UTC)

Doesn;t need cleaning up, it needs deletion as totally pointless drivel. DreamGuy 03:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

DrJoe and the socks

Oh, it's not a waste of time to ask; I have my reasons. android79 02:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Notability (websites)

Hi, I've rewritten Misplaced Pages:Notability (websites), leaning heavily on Misplaced Pages:Notability (companies and corporations) for insiration. I've tried to make the guidelines broader so that they can be applied to any form of web content, rather than focusing on specifics. The goal shouldn't be to set bars to take account of particular examples, but rather to outline existing policy and consensus at various places. As someone who has expressed an opinion on the guidelines in the past, I hope you will read the new version and comment on the talk page. Steve block talk 12:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Aladin

Hi DreamGuy, like you too probably, I'm deeply disappointed by the result the general wikipedia community had with the vote on Aladdin. We are both respectable editors with many many edits, and I was wondering if we should go forward to the official arbitration committee and tell them that we are disturbed by the lack of editorial quality in this respect and are planning to leave the project if this issue isn't addressed. What's your take on this? Peter S. 01:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please don’t vandalise the aladin page as they will only be reverted and it makes your case for deleting the aladin article much weaker. I also notice that you’ve been banned due to another incident where you took matters into your own hands and acted maliciously, I suggest that you reconsider your actions. Englishrose 14:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, you, yes, you, the person on the sockpuppet account spamming self-promotional vanity information all over this encyclopedia.... Nobody "vandalized" the aladin page... it's been made more encyclopedic. See Misplaced Pages:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. I have not been banned for an incident where I acted maliciously, I was blocked by an admin who didn't like my opinion and violated policies to do it. I suggest YOU stop spamming this encyclopedia and posting misleading talk page and edit comments. Nobody is fooled by them, and your comments actually just prove your bad faith actions here. Way too many other editors are on to your little scam for you to prevail at this point. DreamGuy 23:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Your wrote: Hrmmm... Interesting... Just another one of those inherent flaws of Misplaced Pages's openness that spammers are taking advantage of. If you need someone to help out if you figure out what to do, let me know. I'm always on the lookout to stomp spammers and socks. DreamGuy 07:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Add List of magicians to your watchlist (I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who's watching it currently) and take action towards AfD/speedy as situation warrants. And take a look here, here, and here. I trust you'll do what you think is best.

Also, I like it better as a redirect too and it's not vandalism. -- Krash 16:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Black Dahlia

you wrote: OK, first, naming articles you yourself put the infobox on (I tracked it down on Rosa Parks, not bothering with the other, as I can see at a glance on your contribution history that you've been putting them everywhere) doesn't help your case any for putting it elsewhere. Calling it a "high level summary" when all it is is wasted duplicate info directly from the lead is also pretty silly. These are ugly boxes and serve no purpose. DreamGuy 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, I don't know what your problem is, but I can see it's an attitude one for I don't see any reason for any one to warrant your type of hostility toward them in any circumstance. Yes, I added the info biobox to the Rosa Parks, Isaac Newton articles and if you check, both those articles also gained enough merit to become Misplaced Pages Featured Articles. It is not easy for articles to get voted to become FA articles. And if you investigate further, you will learn that there are hundreds of biography articles that uses the infobox template and no, I did not add infoboxes to all those articles, so don't even go there. http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_Biography

I am not interested in wasting my time in some flame war with over something as trivial as an infobox. It exists on Misplaced Pages as a template for biographies and if you dislike it so bad, then make a case to have the template deleted. Direct your hostility, anger and irritation elsewhere. Good bye to you. --speedoflight | talk to me 05:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not trivial,. I see form an old vote for deletion that tons of people wanted it deleted... But there were enough admins who wanted it who ignored the normal ways of doing things that it stayed anyway, and not only that but block people for relisting it again. Absolutely brilliant. So I have an attitude problem because you arrogantly and obnoxiously talk down to people and ignore that nearly half of everyone who expressed an opinion HATES the template, while you merrily go shoving it on more pages. That's not building a consensus, that's just complete arrogance, and it's too bad you have at least one admin on your side equally arrogant and clueless. DreamGuy 23:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked

You have been blocked for 48hrs24hrs for spamming & vote stacking the TFD on Infobox Biography. Please do not continue to do so. Voting processes are bitter enough arguments without adding more gasoline to the fire.  ALKIVAR™ 18:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You HAVE to be fucking kidding me. What sort of fucked up, partisan, bullshit nonsense is this? The instructions for the templates for deletion specifically says to put notices on people's talk pages and GIVES the directions on how to do it! And for this I get blocked? What the hell is that? This prompted by some admin who dislikes me from some reason in the past but can never find a legit reason to block me so they make shit up, or just some busy body with more anger than sense? It's entirely too bad there are so many clueless fuckheads abusing their positions of power and getting in the way of running an encyclopedia. Yes, yes, WP:Civility and all that bullshit, which I'm sure you will point out, but fuck that shit when you are blocking people for no reason, with no warnings over what you think may not be appropriate (making up rules as you go along, like so many others here), so OF COURSE I'm going to be pissed off. You should be blocked for a week for abuse of admin powers and then stripped of your ability to block people. DreamGuy 23:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Complain politely and someone might be moved to do something about it. I'm not. In fact, that statement above is nearly enough to earn you a block in my book. ] 23:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I had my own reservations about whether this block was justified, but I'm not inclined to go out of the way to help, based on that kind of response. Friday (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, because it's much easier to blame the victim and do nothing. OF COURSE I'm going to be pissed off. This isn't a question of some admin following good faith to do what policies say, it's simple harassment by someone who happens to have the ability to block people. Any person who has been so constantly targetted for harassment and blocked so many times by admins who don;t even read the policies they claim to be enforcing is going to be pissed off. "Complain politely" may of course be the right thing, but it's not at all realistic considering the circumstances. DreamGuy 23:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Misplaced Pages should be changed so that when you are blocked a block notice shows up on any page you load, or changes the "edit" button on pages to blocked. Because if the autoblock banned me for another 24 hours or whatever on the idea that I supposedly tried to get around my block, that doesn't make any sense. DreamGuy 23:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, it is not policy for the blocking admin to immediately inform the blocked user of the block, it is merely "customary" for adins to do so. IMO, it ought to be mandatory. android79 00:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

(Android is oh-so-right on the money there.) Friday (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oh for God's sake have they nothing better to block people for? Thanks for letting me know about the box (soon hopefully to be deleted) It was on my watchlist anyway. Sorry to see you're in trouble for it. There are far too many of these little admins galloping about blocking here there and everywhere for trivia. I'm surprised they ever find time to write a page. Giano | talk 22:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Icelandic naming conventions

I agree with you on the point at issue. I missed the vote, having hurt my hand in November, but I am glad to see it was not adopted. (Barely 2-1 is not consensus on a fundamental issue with such a large vote.) I'm sorry to see the block above; I hope this absence will reduce your Wikistress. Septentrionalis 21:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, getting blocked by admins abusing their powers and making shit up off the top of their heads really reduces Wikistress. At this point the only thing that will reduce it is if a number of admins get tossed out on their asses, but of course that won't happen. I've done more for this project that 12 admins put together, but because I don't kiss the asses of the asses who are admins who don't bother to follow policies and stand up for constant POV-pushers and vandals over editors actually improving this project, I am constantly being targeted for abuse. This peons couldn't get a job writing educational nonfiction if their lives depended on it, and here they are trying to run an encyclopedia like some social clique with the "in crowd" and bullying and power plays. Fuck that shit. DreamGuy 23:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm as fed up with silly BS from admins as anyone. But your belief that you're being targetted for abuse through no fault of your own doesn't seem credible to me. I personally think you do lots of good work here. I also personally think you frequently escalate conflicts rather than trying to resolve them. Before you lump "admins" together as a group, you should look around and see that there's an abundance of conflict between admins also. It's not an admins-vs-editors thing. Misplaced Pages tends toward being a madhouse sometimes. Don't contribute to the madness, try to reduce it instead. Friday (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that I have been targetted by a certain group of admins here for no reason at all. Some of the things are legit mistakes by admins who (while they should have read the policies) just didn't know better. Others are very clearly targeted harassment based upon an admin finding someone opposing them on some issue. Now of course not all admins are involved, but my experience with admins have been primarily people in my face breaking rules and yelling at me for not following the same rules they don't follow and petty minor guidelines pushed through in some niche corner somewhere with no practical use. But between the bad admins, the admins who don;t do anything to stop the bad admins, and the admins I have no interaction with, what the hell else am I supposed to think about when it comes to admins here? I only know what I see, and that's been pathetic. I see people who haven't been around more than a couple months get booted up to admin because they go chat up other admins. This place is a joke, and that's primarily because it's built on a social community paradigm instead of a professional quality information publishing standard. Like all other projects of that type, an in group of people who spent lots of time running around when the project started up and successfully build little power bases seize control and do whatever the heck they want, without fear of being reprimanded by anyone. If this place is going to be serious, people need to step in and confront those people. You can't resolve the conflicts by just ignoring them. DreamGuy 23:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I agree with plenty of what you're saying. I'm very concerned about admin abuse. Hell, I even have my own user subpage (User:Friday/Admin abuse) on the subject. I'm not shy about letting people know when I disagree with them, and people have disagreed with me plenty of times too. I haven't personally seen admins ganging up on you, but then again I haven't been looking for it, either. Feel free to let me know if you'd been treated unfairly. Leave me a note, or feel free to edit my admin abuse page. Who knows, I may be part of the problem in your eyes, but I'm willing to try to help out. But please, if you're rude to other people, I'm less likely to be able to get away with unblocking you, for example. There are bad admins here, far too many in fact. But there are good ones too, and plenty of good editors who don't happen to be admins but who can still help. I hope you don't lose faith. I think you're sometimes a bit too harsh on people, but to me, you're one of the good guys here. Friday (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Friday is also right on the money. android79 17:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)