User talk:DreamGuy: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:38, 27 January 2006 editDreamGuy (talk \| contribs)33,601 edits when people have nothing useful to contribute, reverting it is not only acceptable but encouraged← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:14, 28 January 2006 edit undoDreamGuy (talk \| contribs)33,601 edits →[]: removing entire section -- no need to preserve a 3RR warning based upon admin's misunderstanding of the policy, and the resulting arguments about itNext edit →
Line 177:		Line 177:

	Yes -- I am serious. I am not going to start another revert war. Are you refering to the TIAMAT article talk page? -- ] 00:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)		Yes -- I am serious. I am not going to start another revert war. Are you refering to the TIAMAT article talk page? -- ] 00:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

	==]==

	Regarding ], you are in danger, if you haven't in spirit already, of breaking the 3 revert rule. I will assume good faith that you will attempt to broker a compromise, however, please note this is a clear warning that one more revert of the page will result in a block. ] ] 22:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

	:Of course if you'd read the 3RR policy and look at the edits in question you'd know that this is not the case. ] 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

	::I've already asked for clarification of my reading at ]. I think there is a danger of an edit war here and I'm respectfully asking you both to discuss the issue on the talk page rather than use the article as a testing ground for possible compromises. I paid careful attention to the edit history and to ], specifically ''Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor. It does not necessarily mean going back into the page history to revert to a previous version. The passage you keep adding or deleting may be as little as a few words, or in some cases, just one word.'' It has been suggested at ] that the page be protected if further edit-warring is engaged in. I apologise if you disagree with me, but that is my opinion and I hope you can show respect for it. If you note the following revisions, , you have inserted the same text twice, before going on to insert another version of said text, , I hope that will at least explain my reasoning. Thanks for your time. ] ] 00:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

	:::If you note those revisions you'll see that you counted the exact same edit with the same date and time stamp as being two separate edits... furthermore by 3RR standards that would even count as one revert as it was made as an initial change and not a revert. By most people's counts the edits I did there would only count as one revert, perhaps two, not three and definitely not breaking it, "in spirit" or otherwise. Furthermore if you look at the edits the other guy is doing, they are clearly trying to present a false view that the book is considered to be good and accurate when it is overwhelmingly considered to be nonsensical and littered with errors. It seems to me that if you spent more time working on real problems... in this case the clear attempt to distort facts and violate NPOV... instead of going around giving false warnings, the site would be a lot better ENCYCLOPEDIA instead of a mass of pointless red tape with people trying to enforce rules they obviously do not quite grasp themselves. ] 00:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

	::::My mistake, the second link should have been , but since it looks exactly the same as the other one apart from the time and date stamp I am sure you can understand the mistake. I do, however apologise wholeheartedly for not recognising the fact that my message to you on your talk page has prevented the advance of Misplaced Pages. I appreciate your comments, and take them in the obvious good faith they were meant, and only ask you to do the same for mine. If I might however offer you an opinion on your tone; in the future, it might be best to moderate your tone and better communicate your points when you disagree with someone, they are more likely to either understand or respect you, and be more willing to accept your point of view or discuss reasonably issues you bring up. I also find it best, when someone makes a mistake, not to be overly critical for fear of destroying their confidence. Please accept my most humble apology for wasting your time. ] ] 00:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

	:::::What, no admission that the first one wasn't a revert at all or an honest apology, just snarky sarcastic comments that are clearly uncivil? Might I suggest that before you try to lecture people that you do not violate the same principles you claim to be trying to get other people to follow. Just because you hide your contempt in passive aggressive language does not mean your intent was any different or any less obvious. Please see ]. ] 00:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::<del>I'm not quite sure what else to say, I apologise once again. I cannot lie and state I do not believe you were engaged in edit warring and close to breaching the 3RR. I'm sorry we disagree, I am sorry you cannot accept good faith on my part and I'm sorry you are abusing me like this, but no, I am not sorry I mentioned this in the first place. However, I am quite prepared to walk away from this right now if you are quite prepared to discuss your problems with the article at ] on the talk page. I'm unsure as to how this issue is escalating like this, I've asked for clarification on this issue at ], I was told it was a good catch, and I'm not quite sure how I am now to respond for fear of offending you again. I am, troubled by your refusal to extend good faith to me at any level. Could you please explain to me exactly what is happening here, </del><del>because at the moment you appear to be bullying me</del>. ] ] 00:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::I apologise, I have stricken the bullying comment, I should not have said that, I am just rather confused. ] ] 00:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
	If you'll allow me to strike the whole of my last comment and let me say that whilst I'm not convinced I got it wrong it's possible. However, I would appreciate it if you could at least accept I sought clarification on this issue and that I was acting in good faith. I did not want to see the article at ] become embroiled in an edit war and it was my belief that the possibility was that you and Patabongo were heading in that direction. I extend a more fulsome apology. ] ] 01:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
	:OK, here's the deal: Warning people about 3RR violations is a threat. If you scroll up on this page you'll see another one. If you check my page history you'd see quite a few. One thing you would get from pursuing them all in depth is that: A) I fully understand and follow the 3RR policy, B) Most the people showing up to "warn" me don't know enough about it to be trying to enforce it on others, C) Typically it's not at all because they are trying to be helpful but because they are trying to intimidate, D) I have on several occasions been blocked or reported on the 3RR page in an attempt to get me blocked for things that were in no way, shape or form a 3RR violation. These kind of warnings are not at all helpful to anyone who has been around and dealt with the policy as long as I have. I would seriously recommend that people not give these out, as they only antagonize people. "One more revert will result in a block" is not meant to be helpful, it is meant to be a threat, especially since if you had blocked me I simply would have pointed out that the first "revert" was not a "revert" at all but an initial change that isn't counted as one of the four in 24 hours necessary for a block and had another admin who understood the policy better unblock me (and trust me on this, I've done this multiple times, so I know whereof I speak). Furthermore, "I will assume good faith" is the kind of statement that if it were actually true you wouldn't need to say it. So, YES, of course I resent getting "warnings" from people who do not understand the policy they are coming around making threats about, especially given my past history with a number of inappropriate blocks, and especially when the statements are worded uncivilly and then you later make comments on my not exactly civil response... if you worried about civility you wouldn't have worded the first post the way you did.

	:If you seriously want to try to prevent edit warring or encourage discussion, instead of randomly threatening people incorrectly, you should discuss the issue, not make threatening statements and wonder why people get upset. But beyond all that, if your goal here is to make a better encyclopedia, you need to move away from obsessing on petty functional process policies and move to content. I am frustrated with all these people doing things that don't do anything but get in the way of decent editors making decent articles. We need more stringent enforcement on NPOV violations, spammers, hoaxers and so forth long before we worry about whether people are their third or fourth change in 24 hours and whether the edit might be argued to be functionally a revert or not. I mean, seriously, what is your goal here? Articles that people read for good information free from hoaxes and sneaky advertising? Or some sort of social group dynamics experiment with arbitrary rules that are enforced hapahazardly? I'm doing the grunt work because I want to keep the encyclopedia as professional as I can, not because I want to have pretty userboxes and file requests for whatever and campaign for an admin spot like I was pledge a fraternity or something. I do good, vitally important work here and my thanks is repetitive threats to follow some policy or another I've been following for well over a year and can explain backwards and forwards. ] 02:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

	::Fair play, I probably should have worded my warning better, I can accept that. What I can't accept is your implication that I'm engaged in actions which don't further the goal of producing articles which people read for good information free from hoaxes and sneaky advertising. But I apologise, I obviously misread the situation, at least as far as you're concerned. Mind you, if we're calling a warning that people might be blocked if they engage in ceratin actions a threat, which is again fair play, let's be frank. Pointing people at ] is a personal attack. But I accept that I misread the situation, I shouldn't really edit so late, but that's my fault and not an excuse, and I hope you will accept this simple apology. ] ] 16:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
	:::Well, false 3RR warnings certainly don't further the goal of producing articles etc. etc., and I am not sure how referring people to a Misplaced Pages policy can be an attack... if that were the case then I would think it should be renamed. But whatever. I'm not out to antagonize you or anyone, just explain myself. The frustration of seeing pretty much every article on my watchlist going to hell because of POV-warriors and so forth is really getting to me. Something more drastic needs to be done or this place will be dead by the end of the year. ] 21:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:14, 28 January 2006

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.

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)

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)

Barnstar

Have you seen this 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)

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)

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)

Myths and other stories

Nice job on summarising the issues. I will read through them and think about it. At present my general feeling is I don't mind giving alternative meanings some air time but i would not want common usage to take precedence over academic usage. It means[REDACTED] looks very amateurish. Somehting that must be avoided if it is to have any credibility. David D. (Talk) 08:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Biography

Thank you for your notification. I have just voted. -- Vít Zvánovec 15:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot

Howdy, DreamGuy. Given the escalating situation on Bigfoot, I've decided to go ahead with an RfC on Beckjord's behavior. It's located here and is not yet "live". I want to be as thorough as possible, and as you can probably guess, collecting diffs is a tedious task. Your help would be greatly appreciated. If you do help out, please edit only the evidence sections, and don't sign or endorse anything just yet. Other than that, make changes as you see fit. Thanks. android 79 02:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I responded to your message regarding the Mythology page on my talk page, if you didn't see it already. android 79 02:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume you'll have no objections if we take this matter directly to the ArbCom? android 79 17:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The request is up at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Beckjord. Feel free to add a statement, or to remove your name if you no longer wish to participate. Thanks. android 79 22:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Me & X images

I reposted the Me & X images you posted on Jan. 9 at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2006 January 16 for more discussion. Can you please add your thoughts again if you want to. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 18:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I see the guy is complaining about being "harassed" and so forth. Gosh, we're just so horrible for not letting him waste Misplaced Pages server space so he can put up a personal photo album of tons of pics of himself that can never be used in an encyclopedia. It's admins like him that give the rest a bad name, feeling entitled to break rules themselves while trying to enforce rules on others arbitrarily. We can only hope the guy gets a clue or leaves. DreamGuy 07:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse

Hey, sorry about the mixup at Satanic ritual abuse -- there is apparently some bug in the software, because when I tried to save the version with the bare wikilink moved from under the category tags to the "See also" section, it should have told me that you had already saved a version in the meantime, but it didn't. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Aladin (magician)

The page move was as per discussion at Deletion reveiw as was menioend in the relevant edit summery. DES 23:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny how people come to a decision without even reading the comments of other editors or the history of the conflict... votes were to redirect. Clear consensus was established. One or two people out of nowhere who did't even read enough about the controversy or the votes to understand that "aladin" is the spelling the supposed magician uses cannot in any way be considered binding. It's just a couple of clueless people taking the misrepresented summary view of a biased editor as gospel. Just because you personally think the page should be moved doesn't mean you get to overrule the long list of editors who voted to redirect the page. DreamGuy 00:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't care enough about the dab page to fight about this, but the article clearly exists. Maybe that's an error, but if someone tries to add it to the dab again before this is resolved, perhaps it's better to leave it alone. Then when the page is actually gone, it can be removed from the dab. Tedernst | talk 05:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The article does not exist, or at least it didn't when they link was removed. The fact that somebody goes back and restores it against the clear consensus of the editors on the talk page and in the vote and then tries to change other articles based upon their restoring it doesn't change anything about the outcome of the vote. I'm sick to death of people trying to lie (yes, LIE, it's a deliberate deception of people who were outvoted) and claim that votes to "Keep, but only to keep the history and the talk page so we can then erase the article and replace with a redirect" somehow means "Keep and move the article and start linking other articles to it." DreamGuy 06:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Deadly Poison edits

(Moved from your user page --Petros471 18:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC))

Judging from your user name it looks like you are a member of the group you keep adding references to all across Misplaced Pages. Please stop. This is considered spam. The article does not give any reason for anyone to believe the group is encyclopedic or in fact that it even exists at all. Please read our Verifiability policy and understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a mere blog. DreamGuy 07:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the correct place to answer you, if it is not I am sorry. Thank you for letting me know that adding references across Misplaced Pages is considered spam, I didn't know and I won't do it anymore.

I am not part of the group, even though I have registered to place the entry about it and write the information. I am not an occultist, I am a college student of anthropology that have done a work about DPVO. Even though some of the research was done by myself, all the information is based on books and occult magazines (some could only find on different Portuguese occult bookshops), as it is rule for Misplaced Pages information. I haven't done any field work (research), so actually any of this material and information is new. As for the information to be encyclopedic, I think that if it is worth an essay in college, and an organization with more than 100 members in Portugal (I don't have the real confirmed numbers for the Spanish division), it surely is encyclopedic information, that can be helpful for other students. I have already provided one book that has the source for some of the information, i'll check back my work's biography and include some other citations of you want. As for the question about the order existing at all, I don't think that is even questionable, you can contact anyone in the Portuguese occult scene and everyone has heard and read about it. Even on a SIC (One of the Portuguese TV Channels - www.sic.pt) debate they talked about it. (Deadlypoison 16:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC))

Well, if you provide sources and stuff, all is good for the main article... though it'd still be very questionable to list it on many of the pages you did. DreamGuy 06:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Mop

I just got promoted, feel free to let me know when you need help with admin stuff. - Haukur 00:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. DreamGuy 06:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Saugeen Stripper 2

Consensus is a weird and subjective creature, my friend. For one thing, vote count means nothing: Just today I've deleted more than a few AfDs where the vote count would indicate no consensus, when common sense would indicate only a troll (or uninformed "voter" such as ones who "voted" before new "voters" presented new information) would keep the article (just look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/George Fellows). (Thebainer has also pointed out something else of interest for vote counters on my user talk.) The AfD cannot be used to judge consensus in the future because it captures consensus (or the lack of it) only at the time the AfD debate was ongoing. You are still free to redirect the article; gathering consensus isn't hard. Just redirect, and if reverted, explain on the talk, and work things out until someone has convinced someone the former is right. Johnleemk | Talk 14:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break. 46 votes to get rid of it versus 20 to keep is not at all debatable, and it's ludicrous for you to imply otherwise. Furthermore what better way to prove consensus than the results of a vote? Your response simply makes no sense, but whatever. DreamGuy 16:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

While I completely agree with your arguments, due process needs to be followed - that means a deletion review (which is in progress at the moment). --OntarioQuizzer 19:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review isn't necessary... this is just like any case where editors reach consensus and some troublemaking POV-warriors try to ignore it. You just do what the consensus said. I have no trust in deletion review as they totally screwed up an earlier case that was quite similar, where the votes clearly showed delete/redirect and people objected and the deletion review decided to ignore it. If that was any indication, the people wthere are playing cowboys and ignoring policies. DreamGuy 20:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Before you spout off about the minority wikilawyering to see their POV stay in the project, I ask you to look at the AfD to see how, in fact, I voted on the AfD. --OntarioQuizzer 20:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I said "some troublemaking POV-warriors", not "you". If you mistakenly assumed I was talking about you, don't lash out at me over your misreading of what I said. I was just explaining that other peopple trying to take the page over do not need to be coddled and explaining that deletion review has no bearing one way or another on redirecting. DreamGuy 21:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough

I will allow you to delete the article that the closing admin decided was a non-con/keep. I will not revert. BUT, stop deleting the photo series from the hall page. It is highly relevant and deltion of it is pure censorship. (unsigned, but by User:165.230.196.82)

You will not "allow" anything, because you do not have control over anything. The closing admin himself reverted you when you claimed that the results were to keep the article as is... a no consensus keep only does not delete, it does not prevent redirects... and his count on the votes was highly suspect to begin with. Furthermore a large number of people identified the link to the porn site as gratuitous and nonencyclopedic. Removing it isn't censorship, it's removing spam. Your attitude here is completely unacceptable, as an editor cannot demand other people listen to them, especially not an unregistered anonymnous user, and especially not when what you are trying to do clearly goes against consensus and policy. DreamGuy 16:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Regarding you reverts to Saugeen Stripper. You are sailing very close (and arguably beyond) the WP:3RR. Please do not revert this article again in the next 24 hrs or you risk being blocked. Thanks. --Doc 20:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No, not arguably beyond at all... Well, I'm sure there are some people out there who would try to argue just so they can try to harass me, but, no, 3RR doesn't work like that. And the article is locked right now, so, yaknow, it's not like I can revert it even if I wanted to. Kind of pointless warning, eh? DreamGuy 21:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Under Attack

You are under attack. Thought you should know this matter. Link is this: You and two others mentioned in this matter

By the way, how do you "NPOV" everything ? Martial Law 00:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hope I did the correct thing in the above matter. Martial Law 00:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hope I did not violate any Wikipedian protocol at all by notifying you of this matter. Martial Law 04:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What else do you call it when you are insulted, called really nasty derogatory matter ? Martial Law 03:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Android and I both mentioned it in the arbitration request. Got a few more arbitrators to agree to take the case now, probably based upon that, which means it's moving ahead now. DreamGuy 11:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Your recent post on Android's page

DreamGuy, if you'll let me know whether you have explicitly asked Elonka and/or Petros471 to stop posting on this page, I'll be happy to tell both of them that any continued posting amounts to harassment. (I see your edit summaries when removing the posts, but I'm talking about asking on your/her page — not everybody reads edit summaries.) Everyking was recently blocked for harassing me on my page, for rather less than what Elonka is doing, with her "7th attempt". She's free to disapprove of your removal of her posts, but that's it--she's not free to harass you about it, nor to badmouth you elsewhere, either. Bishonen | talk 14:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

Yup, on their talk pages, I told both to not post here again. More than just Elonka's continued harassment, I am concerned about Petros471 pretending to be a mediator when he/she is suspiciously new here and I already told him that I don't accept some newbie who doesn;t understand policies trying to pretend to be official in some way. I would like him to remove the info on his talk page claiming ongoing mediation when he has no power to do so and I explicitly told him I would not accept him mediating anything. DreamGuy 14:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, my understanding is that anyone can offer to mediate any situation, but accepting their mediation is purely at the discretion of those involved in the dispute. So there may be a thin line between "pretending to be a mediator" and offering to help. Still, once it's clear that one or both parties aren't interested in the mediator, they really ought to let it drop. Friday (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now, just so there is no confusion, posted to the talk pages of the two individuals involved explicitly telling them not to edit my talk page and that I reject some self-declared mediator who clearly doesn't understand policies and has only been here a month and a half. Here are warnings: Elonka: Petros: . Any further attempt on their behalf to post here or pursue this sham "mediation" will be reported as harassment. DreamGuy 15:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As Friday says, and as I've already written to Petros, I'm not really concerned with the "official standing" bit either: anybody can mediate, if they manage to earn and keep the trust of the involved parties. (An important if.) It may come as a shock to you, but all mediators in this place are basically self-appointed.

Note that I'm not reviewing the whole AfD dispute Elonka considers she has with you; it's the present situation that concerns me, after running across your post on Android's page, and it looks a lot like like harassment to me. (Btw, Android sounds like he's reviewing in greater depth than I've done, so I hope he weighs in too.) If there's more of it from either of them after the warnings I've posted, I will block the culprit. As for the putative "mediation page", it's such a sham that I'm quite prepared to delete it without further ceremony. In the interest of keeping everybody happy, though, I've given Elonka a chance to move her own material on it to a better place, and Petros a chance to show good will by himself marking his page for speedy deletion. Bishonen | talk 16:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

I will take a closer look at the whole AfD mess when I have the time; I have a feeling this is going to end up as an RfC. I concur with Bish, the "mediation page" looks more like a "let's gather dirt" page, and it needs to go. Please try to remain as civil as possible with these folks, even if they continue with this behavior; you've got plenty of admins monitoring this. android 79 16:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks folks... the situation does seem eerily similar to the RFC Gabrielsimon tried against me last summer. DreamGuy 16:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi DreamGuy,

At the risk of muddying the waters with too many cooks, I've also been asked to look at this case. Correct me if I am wrong, but this all started with problems related to the article Aladin (magician), its AfD, and a couple of related articles. I can see that that article has had a troubled history (and how), with editing from a number of sockpuppet accounts. And I appreciate that you have have a whole mountain of trouble with sockpuppets in the past. However User:Elonka's account looks pretty solid to me, and I can see that from her perspective this edit of yours at Talk:Eenasul Fateh, would look like quite a strong personal attack.

Is it not possible in this instance, that you made a mistake in assuming that User:Elonka's edits were made in bad faith. Perhaps I am missing something that went on earlier in the dispute, but from what I can tell, Elonka has behaved honourably in trying to follow dispute resolution and asking for an appology. Again I know that you have had trouble in the past with harassing comments on you talk page as well as being stalked. However blanking can't be the right response to all unwelcome discussion. In a situation where a good faith editor is asking for dispute resolution, deleting talk page comments as harassment, can easily be seen as a breach of Wikiquette that exacerbates the dispute.

I get the sense that this is a simple mistake that has gotten out of hand — one that could easily be resolved by acknowledging Elonka's concerns. -- Solipsist 17:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I am uninterested in whether you feel blanking posts is appropriate or not, as many admins and arbitrators have clearly stated that editors can and should blank and ignore comments in situations like these. Furthermore, harassing people and trying to take part in a sham mediation with a biased newbie editor pretending to be fair and informed certainly is NOT behavoring honorably. As far as acknowledging Elonka's concerns, as I said to her, and I stand behind this statement 100%, she is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet for the people who hoaxed the information used to falsify the magician's notoriety or she is being duped by them. That's my opinion, I am free to state it, and if she's all bent out of shape about it and is on some personal crusade about it, that only goes to prove my point that she's not acting like a rational person not involved in the hoax in that situation would act. Or perhaps she's just not rational. Who knows. I get called far worse things than that all the time, and especially by her and others involved in that article, but you can't get obsessed about it and harass people. Any complaints she thinks she has about me are nothing compared to what she is doing. Thanks for your comments, but, you know, when four or more admins tell me her activity definitely is inappropriate harassment and you try to portray it as honorable behavior, it just doesn't strike me as an accurate assessment. DreamGuy 17:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I've got a certain amount of experience in tracing sockpuppets, but I can't claim to have a full understanding of which accounts to trust with respect to the Aladin (magician) page. I've yet to form any opinion with respect to most of the other involved editors, and my assessment of Elonka may be mistaken. However at the moment I still have the impression she is an editor who just tried to help out with an AfD and got unfairly critised in the process.

In anycase, if things proceed to an RfC I dare say the full details will come out. -- Solipsist 18:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

TIAMAT

"revert box... this infobox was never voted on or approved by wikiprojects, just something some guy is forcing on a bunch of pages."

Ok, I'll play your game. Where exactly do we/I go to DISCUSS the matter? -- Jason Palpatine 21:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

...is this even a serious question? DreamGuy 00:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes -- I am serious. I am not going to start another revert war. Are you refering to the TIAMAT article talk page? -- Jason Palpatine 00:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Myth and Mythology

Cultures cannot believe; the people of a culture can. I am more than willing to change the def, no need to bring it to my talk page.

As far as Codex, he's a pain on Noah's Ark as well. He gets the bit in his teeth and he's just plain aggrevating. He is careful not to violate WP:3RR. As far as what can be done, be more persistant than he. An Rfc is all that can be done otherwise, and frankly he's borderline for an Rfc right now. He seems to have droppped the dates and the newer/later stuff, so progress, however grindingly slow, is being made.

Let me know if I can ever do anything to help, and if I'm ever wrong about something just tell me - I prefer the encyclopedia be accurate, truly. KillerChihuahua 23:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, cultures DO believe. Cultures are made up of people. Saying people believe is already included by saying culture, unless there is some culture out there that doesn't contain people. But, more importantly, it has to be a cultural group of some sort. One person or a small group that doesn't rise to the level of a culture of some sort do not have myths, they have folklore or superstitious beliefs or delusions or something depending upon the specifics. It's inherent to the definition.

And, frankly, I CAN'T be more persistent than he. I'm already stretched to the breaking limit as it is, and with Codex and JHCC taking turns to push their religious goals and historical revisionism and try to change defnitions and go against consensus, I can't keep up, and my reverts are already all spent almost immediately. I'm a extremely frustrated that we had all that discussion on the talk page about the importace of not changing the academic definition and not pushing POV and agreeing on what to do, and they are running around changing things left and right based upon complete nonsense. Why did we even have the discussion if these two editors ignore what the eight or ten or more editors had to say on the matter? DreamGuy 23:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I had thought this was almost to resolution? I have to admit I have not been tracking the changes. Do you need a third opinion? David D. (Talk) 23:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned yes, but it would be a fourth, if you count Codex, altho he hasn't weighed in on this bit yet. KillerChihuahua 23:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We HAD a resolution, but JHCC and Codex are ignoring the consensus that was established. Yes, we need help here... desperately. DreamGuy 23:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Lynch

Greetings. I do appreciate your comments on this AFD, but I think you might be taking it a bit personally. Although I am leery of Misplaced Pages:Autobiography, because some of the information came from My. Lynch (but that's clearly denoted on the talk page, so no mystery there), I have updated the article with several points that are confirmable that I hope you will find slides the bar over into Keep. Mainly, that he has has been published in three off-line media: a magazine, a book, and a video game seems to confirm his notability for me. Of course, I am working to aquire a copy of those to confirm the facts (Amazon wants $103 for a copy of the book *used* (!!), but that's what the library is for.) Yes, I agree with you that there are some suspicious edits (which I have reverted) and that some contributors have dubious history. However, I am honestly trying to keep this article informative and clean; to build it up to a satisfactory level, rather than tear it down. I will understand if consensus demands it to be taken down (and I wouldn't take it personally -- I didn't start the page, I just edited it), but I think something good can come of this article. JRP 14:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait, someone personally attacks me for listing the article for deletion even though I tried unsuccessfully for a while to get someone to come up with a justification for the person's notability and then lies about what I said, and I am taking it personally? As I clearly said in the listing description, if you can come up with evidence that the person is notable, then the page can obviously stay. It's up for a vote now. People can look at the page, read the comments, and decide for themselves. But also note that the only possibly (I'm not convinced) notable things in his life were only brought out by the AFD process... in that case, listing it is a good thing, as it forces people to do the real work in order to save it, whereas earlier nobody felt like doing anything about it.

The individual described by the article posted on the talkpage and also personally emailed me. His claims that Usenet posts count as notable is clearly false. Claims that being a reviewer online for many years makes him notable is clearly false. Simply having written trivia questions for a computer game doesn't count as notable either (I mean, come on, I've done that, so have probably thousands of people). The only thing that might count as notable is the reviews for TV Zone, if it can be proven, if the magazine had a large circulation, and if it was something high profile. Writing reviews for magazines as part of a list of volunteer reviewers, if that's what it was, clearly is not notable.

But then this is how the process works. DreamGuy 14:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

With respect, I said that "an argument could be made" that posts to a *moderated* Usenet group might count as publication; I was not making nearly as cut-and-dried a claim as you cite here. (People are welcome to go to the talkpage and check for themselves.) As for TV Zone, it was not as part of a list of volunteer reviewers: I was sought out by Peter Griffiths, the editor at the time, and was hired. Any review I wrote for them did in fact have my name attached to it -- I was not part of "an anonymous stable", or however you put it in a previous post.

You've been on Misplaced Pages far longer than I, and I certainly would not presume to question your expertise. I agree with you that it's been a useful exercise making sure that "the real work" was done. I would, however, respectfully suggest that at this point much of that work you describe has been done.

TimLynch 10:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Howdy

Do you have anything to add to Beckjord arbitration....Bishonen mentioned that her image gallery had been vandalized by Beckjord after she blocked him. I already put in a bunch of diffs on the evidence page and didn't want to hog them all, so if you want to mentioned Bishonen's comment to me, that would be great. It's a tedious chore but we should all voice our thoughts, especially with the level of personal attacks he has waged.--MONGO 12:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)