Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:20, 29 August 2008

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 This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current.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

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

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

Meiling Melançon

Hi DreamGuy - Just FYI: I saw your request for editor input on the external links talk page and responded at the article. -- SiobhanHansa 00:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. DreamGuy (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:DeGuignes_Pekin_livres.jpg

Aha -- thanks for your brief message. On the basis of your explanation, I now appreciate that my reasoning was mistaken in uploading this specific image. I don't know how to delete an image, but the bottom line is that your thoughtful attention to detail is at least appreciated in this case.

I am sorry to learn that I was wrong, of course: but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

May I trouble you further by asking how I go about deleting this wrongly uploaded image? --Tenmei (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice

Very nice. I didn't like mine, but hoped it would get someone thinking, and I much appreciate your far better wording. KillerChihuahua 21:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

meat puppetry accusation

Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2, you are not to make uncivil comments or accusations of bad faith. However at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tag team you have done that in the actual comment and the edit summary. Using language such as "known meatpuppet" is both uncivil, and terrible bad faith, unless you have already discussed this and "known" refers to a community approved deduction. Is there any such communal discussion? If not, please initiate some kind of actual discussion where others will likely tell you that your suspicions are ill-founded. Otherwise, please stop with this kind of harassment, and go and retract your comment at the MFD and apologise to both parties. John Vandenberg 03:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Apparently by your standards you think we should not point out when editors make bad edits? In other words, bad editors can go around and do whatever they want, break any policies they want, and they won;t be stopped because to point out the bad behavior is uncivil? Sorry, that doesn't fly. It's not harassment to point those sorts of things out. and Fat Cigar, is, in fact, a known meatpuppet of Elonka's, as identified by an admin on Elonka's RFC... and it could be verified by yourself as well if you'd bothered to check the edit history instead of coming here to make threatening accusations. I am certainly not going to apologize, and I think you should apologize for assuming bad faith about me. Frankly, if you can come here and point out what you think is my bad behavior without looking into the situation, I can certainly point out what I think is bad behavior that I have looked into. This whole post of yours seems to be a "do as I say, not as I do". And "others will likely tell you that your suspicions are ill-founded" is hysterical... that's a mixture of assuming bad faith and assuming psychic abilities. DreamGuy (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As well, do not ever refactor my posts again. If you do so again, you will be reported to AE. Learn from your past mistakes, as I will not have the slightest hesitation to request your blocking. - Arcayne () 03:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't refactoring your comments, it was removing a tag you added to someone else's talk page that was completely inappropriate. You can put whatever comments you feel like putting anywhere, but if you put up something that looks like an official admin warning at the top of a page someone else can certainly remove it. On top of that, you know you are not allowed to post to this talk page, and you've reported me in the past for all sorts of similar ridiculous accusations that only ended up having admins point out that it was you who was breaking policy, so if you think I'm going to be threatened by your antics here you haven't learned anything from your year of continuous harassment. DreamGuy (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is in regards to , as outlined here it is about this edit. DreamGuy, as you reverted Arcayne for a warning about that anon diff, could you please add some context here on why you thought the anon edit was good. John Vandenberg 05:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, it isn't really about an edit occurring elsewhere, John. DG is under rather specific ArbCom restrictions that are supposed to curb his behavior in regards to incivility (2) and editing from anon accounts {1). In the JTR-related discussion, he used an anonymous account (previously identified as being in his IP range) to make a personal attack () that anon IP edit was not refactored to reflect that it came from a signed-in DreamGuy, as doing so would put him in blatant violation of his parole, and he would be blocked without hesitation. His last block, less than a week ago, was for 96 hours. Coupled with the attack post he placed on the anon's usertalk page suggests that the ArbCom restrictions hold little promise in rehabilitating the way in which DG interacts with others.

Thought you would prefer a better picture of the issue. - Arcayne () 14:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly not a clearer picture, as you are falsely accusing me of not being signed on and personally attacking you. I most certainly did not make that post, and the IP is certainly not even close to what I am using now... You have a history of assuming that anyone who ever says anything bad about you must be me on a sockpuppet/IP or whatever, and time and time again you've been proven wrong. And, frankly, that person looks like he's probably calling me a troll and not you, as there is another person running around on sockpuppets doing just that lately... in fact it's the person I was discussing in that edit you responded to. DreamGuy (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(The above seems to be a mix of two different issues, but I'm only writing to John—the other thing is too complicated for me atm—I'll just say that if DreamGuy has been changing Arcayne's posts, then A has every right to be angry.) John, I don't think it's reasonable to warn DreamGuy for what he wrote about User:Fat Cigar, and peremptorily tell him to apologize. (Do we ever order people to apologize? That has to be within the personal purview of every user, IMO.) Fat Cigar is is an SPA sockpuppet that exists for the sole purpose of aggressively "voting" in favor of Elonka—so far, at her recall petition, her essay, her RFC , , etc: and for teasing and annoying her critics, and generally stirring things up wrt Elonka. As luck would have it, I was just typing up a comment to that effect, to be posted below Fat Cigar's "vote" at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tag team. It would have been worded rather more sharply than DreamGuy's, and I may yet post it.. though now perhaps it's not needed. And I wouldn't use the word "meatpuppet"; I have no wish to accuse Elonka of suborning this editor. On the other hand, DreamGuy, in using the word, is referring to what he has seen written about FC—on Elonka's talk, I think it was (I'm pretty sure I've seen it, too.) FC is new; has too much Misplaced Pages competence for a newbie; is an inflammatory SPA: so it's a sock. Now warn me per WP:AGF if you wish. But perhaps you'd like to look at Fat Cigar's contributions first. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC).

This is Misplaced Pages, everyone changes everyone else's posts all the time. If I changed his comments on a talk page, sure, that'd be bad, but it was an inappropriate tag at the top of the page, not a comment... he can put it there, I can remove it, and Arcayne's just trying to wikilawyer up another accusation out of nothing to make his standard weekly false threat.

And as far as Fat Cigar as a meat puppet goes, yup, thanks for the back up. I hope User:Jayvdb cools his jets in the future and stomps making demands and accusations without looking into things first. DreamGuy (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I do look into things as much as time permits I dont like getting myself into tangles here on Misplaced Pages; my jets are pretty damn cool (You dont see me over at RFAR demanding neither pound of flesh, nor blood.) I do try to limit my actions and requests to things that are for the good for the project and the people. John Vandenberg 23:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(to Bishonen, and DreamGuy) It is the word meatpuppet that DreamGuy has been invoking many times, especially to imply that Elonka is guilty of what is being described in that essay - tag teaming - with lots of use of the term "irony". DreamGuy is under the shadow of remedies intended to stop this nonsense, so that pre-emptive claims of sockery is left to people like Bishonen who have the good sense to choose their words more carefully. DreamGuy is also pushing buttons to antagonise Elonka & co, just like Fat Cigar :- should I be accusing him of meatpuppeting or being a meatpuppet? No; no good comes of it - instead we believe that people can join the fray and hold an opinion close to anothers opinion without being harassed who hold an opposing position - DreamGuy is not neutral, and so should try to umpire as well.

I didnt order DreamGuy to take a specific action! I said that:-

1. I didnt see any communal and open discussion regarding this sockery, which I could easily have missed and I would welcome a pointer if it exists. I did look at Fat Cigar's contribs, and so can understand the guesswork that there is some socking in play there, but the lack of any notice on Fat Cigar's talk of an ongoing discussion regarding sockery worries me. In this diff I originally pointed to, DreamGuy said "At the time the Fat Cigar account was labeled as an obvious meat puppet" - I dont see that either.
2. If there isnt any public discussion of this sockery, I then also recommended two good courses of action for DreamGuy to reverse the assumption of bad faith that was made: either have this sockery publicly discussed, or apologise for it.

In this thread I originally asked for pointers because I wanted to discuss it, and keep it cool. Yea, I was pretty direct, and I was jumping the gun a bit by also recommending acceptable corrective actions based on the assumption that my limited research to find a communal sockery discussion was extensive enough to conclude it didnt exist. Sorry for bundling it all into one post - I am time poor and I wanted to get this cleared up ASAP before it escalated. Dont ya think I could have escalated this further and faster if I had wanted to? Come on. My original query hasnt been answered yet, and yes in part I have my own preemptive recommendations to blame for that, but that doesnt excuse the fact that so much has been said here and there without my original query being answered; instead I am being accused of ABF and being a hot head. I would (and will) be happy to apologies for ABF if it is pointed out that it was a well held opinion that there was meatpuppetry involved, but so far there hasnt been any diffs given to where "a community of editors (including a number of admins) have agreed that Fat Cigar is a meat puppet". Please dont muddy the water (, or water it down :-),) by saying that Fat Cigar is an SPA (heck, I would conclude that at present). DreamGuy has accused a new user and Elonka of meatpuppetry (in spite of the hammer that hovers,) and that must be substantiated or corrected. New users are to be welcomed and guided, or tagged and bagged; old users deserve more respect - they deserve AGF, and apologies. To be clear, WP:AE is the next stop; I had hoped that wouldn't be necessary (and still do, hence the post here rather than there). John Vandenberg 23:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you seem to have a complete disconnect between what you expect of me and the multiple admins who have noted the clear puppetry going on and what you expect of yourself. I don't know how you can seriously argue that it's out of line to report clear policy violations but not out of line for you to make accusations of policy violations against us without any evidence of such. If you've read Bishonen's post above, or looked at Fat Cigar's edit history, or what happened on Elonka's RFC (and other related pages) you have all the evidence... You'd have to be blind, or purposefully choosing to ignore extremely clear evidence, to miss it. If Fat Cigar's actions don't qualify as obvious meat puppetry at best (or sockpuppetry at worst) then nothing would ever qualify and you might as well not have a page explaining what puppets are. This was discussed by Bishonen and Jenochman and others on the RFC and elsewhere, and it's all right there in the open in the edit history. You'll excuse me if I wonder whether the problem is that you don't understand what meatpuppets are, or if you've got a blind spot when it comes to Elonka (so old editors deserve our respect, when it's Elonka anyway, but you don't seem to be giving anything like respect to the number of admins and other editors who pointed out the clear puppetry), or what exactly you're up to here. If you admit that Fat Cigar is an SPA, and that SPA is a new account that exists solely to support Elonka in her RFC and other politicking, then you admit he's a meatpuppet by definition if not by terminology. Come on, get serious here. DreamGuy (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves

I find it best to assume good faith. I left the user the standard {{c&pmove}} message about how to correctly move articles. If the user does it again and makes edits on the new copy then a history merge would be needed. See WP:SPLICE for more information on that. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

SSP and CU reports concerning you

Arcayne filed WP:SSP and WP:RFCU reports on you this morning, and as he is obliged to do, he left notice here on your page. Since then, the leanings of the discussions there have moved towards the likelyhood that, instead of it being you at the IP in question, it was someone setting up both you and Arcayne, to get you in trouble using Arcayne as the unwitting tool. Arcayne then removed the notice here, as you are no longer really the target of the investigations. But still, you *are* effected, so I felt you deserved to be still informed that the discussions that effect you at least in part, are ongoing. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. I did see Arcayne's edits here removing his earlier accusations when they turned out to be wrong. It's strange how he can get away with all sorts of harassing behavior and assuming of bad faith on a regular basis and I've got someone above telling me to apologize under threat of blocking or whatever if I don't for pointing out that several admins had identified a meatpuppet account. Yet the latest example of people not even pretending to follow rules impartially. DreamGuy (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Golly, you were looking for an apology? Okay: I am sorry that I presumed that the uncivil behavior of an anon account was yours. Of course, you wold never edit anonymously or be uncivil. How could I have ever arrived at that conclusion?

Anyway, thanks for being gracious about the whole matter. - Arcayne () 01:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Chimera

I see the edit war has reemerged (after long dormancy) over the link to Yanartaş on the dab page for Chimera. I looked at the Pliny and Aeneid links in the former article that appear to support the claimed link. The only question that I have is whether the identification of the ancient site with modern Yanartaş is well-established. In any case, the ancient accounts referenced by the Yanartaş article are relevant and I'd be inclined to let it stand. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)