Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:55, 30 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

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. android79 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. android79 02:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume you'll have no objections if we take this matter directly to the ArbCom? android79 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. android79 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)

I can not really see how you can get NPOV rewards, except maybe it's "MyPOV" rewards ;) But maybe that's just me. Both Antaeus and you are clearly biasing the article and (as in your handling the links and comments on them) the links from the page. While I think that a lot of scepticism is in place when gross allegations appear, like in this topic, and while I admit that a qv to "mass hysteria" is right in place, nonetheless SRA is something that from factual and juridical evidence seems to happen at least among smaller groups, at least in cases which may or may not be isolated from each other. Any mention of that is carefully edited out by you three (with Zoe), all efforts are undertaken to discredit anyone who might be called forward (or linked to) as witness on SRA, see the extensive long description of the stalking verdict. Instead of presenting both views and mentioning that both sides have their advocates, you act as an advocate yourself, complete with strawman arguments and with discrediting your perceived enemies and with quite a lot of non sequiturs. (If there have been wrong verdicts, it doesn't follow that all verdicts must be wrong. If it is possible to implant false memories -and it is- it doesn't follow that all therapists do and did that on the topic of SRA) If you were interested in a real NPOV article, I might venture to rewrite the whole thing. But unless you three refrain from editing your 'devils advocate' POV there (pun intended) I don't see a chance for a NPOV article. At least I'd hope you'd be able and willing to see that yourself and add the NPOV warning. Gwyndon 10:52, 30 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 l ie (yes, L IE, 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)

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. android79 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)

I'm very wary of stepping into this one as it seems to be quite a lively place! However I'd like to change the line that says "In common usage....".The most common usage that I know is the term "Urban Myth' which doesn't refer to something that is untrue but something who's truth is hard to determine due to the lack of specifics of the case and the undocumented way the knowledge has been passed on. All I want to say is "may be untrue". I've put this on your talk page as I don't want to get savaged!

Thanks for your comments on the Religious Tolerence websit problems. After trying to e-mail you and realising I didn't know how to do it I did eventually reply on my talk page. Basically I think the Verifyability proposal needs to be got rid of as it's the first step to censoprship. I think allowing blanket bans on sites will make for lazy editing - as it is these references will only survive if they survive the rigours of the current system! How can it be put forward for deletion? I think it's open to misinterpretation just being left there. SOPHIA 09:38, 29 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)

I don't really understand all the hoops arbitration expect out of people... my original comments on the RfAr already listed tons of evidence, and so did lots of other people, and now we're supposed to start from scratch? Copy and paste what we said there over there, that's more than enough toprove our points. Between the RfAr and the RFC we put together it should be done already, shouldn't it? DreamGuy 00:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone who signed a statement needs to provide evidence. Trust me, after his most recent tirade, I'll be coming up with enough evidence for all of us. android79 00:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree with DreamGuy here. Once a case has been accepted and an evidence page created, no arb is ever again going to look at the statements painstakingly prepared for the Request. (An arb told me this.) So the common notion that you need a complete reformulation for your actual evidence has to be mostly aesthetic, IOW absurd extra work. Copypaste with some up-to-the-minute stuff added is surely good enough. Bishonen | talk 01:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

I got the up to the minute stuff from today's tirade and I think sme other newish things. Do we have anything from the RfAr that hasn;t been recycled into the A itself yet? Somebody should pick up whatever else maybe left of the old parts.DreamGuy 18:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My Mistake

Dreamguy, I was the one who put the link to the forumboard, my mistake. MarcusTCicero 02:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a biggee. DreamGuy 18:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Discussion

I've brought your comments on Neutral Point of View into the discussion here as they appear to be relevant and require further discussion. --Iantresman 14:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Psionics article

I'd appreciate it if you didn't insist upon removing all of the external links. Some of them, such as Psipog and the Psion Guild, have been discussed on the talk page, with an overall consensus to keep them. One user should not go against a consensus. I've applied for temporary protection, although I hope we can talk it out either here or on the article talk page. Firestorm 22:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Those two links especially have to go. We discussed them on another article... they are nothing but nonotable tiny "community" sites of no encyclopedic value added as spam links. Misplaced Pages is not a place for free advertising, nor is it a mere collection of links. Please read and follow the Misplaced Pages:External links and Misplaced Pages:Spam policies. DreamGuy 22:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, an organization containing numerous articles and comprising several hundred members hardly qualifies as 'tiny'. Both of the aforementioned organiztions, as well as the Veritas academy, have quite a lot of articles and over 100 members. As far as WP:EL, I would like some clarification as to what part the websites that I mentioned violate. I'll even paste here the 'What should not be linked to' section:

• 1. In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.---These sites contain numerous articles about psionics, both practical and theory.
  2. Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming.---of the ones I mentioned, this does not apply.
  3. Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.---Nothing being sold.
  4. Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising---Very little advertising, the only exceptioncxs being the ads that Google puts on some of them.
  5. Sites that require payment to view the relevant content---again, not selling anything.
  6. Sites that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content unless (1) it is the official site of the subject of the article (2) the article is about those media, or (3) the site is being cited as a reference.---Although the Psipog website is flash-based (I think), it usually loads muhc faster than the old HTML version did.
  7. Bookstores. Use the "ISBN" linking format which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.---Irrelevant
  8. A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.---I do not own or maintain any of the websites I mentioned.

Firestorm 23:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Clear violation of the second and/or the last (people who added the links everywhere to numerous articles obviously were owner or involved in it) . #1 is worded oddly, but sort of that too -- no solid encyclopedic content. DreamGuy 00:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

While many of the links to smaller websites do in fact fall under those categories, my issue is not with them. I'm contesting your removal of the Psipog, Psion Guild, and Veritas links. We'll start with the second and last rules. I personally added PsiPog and the Psion Guild, and I neither run nor maintain either of them. The person who added the Veritas link, in my memory, was WingedWolf, the owner of the Psion Guild, who has nothing to do with Veritas. That, in my opinion, effectively renders your arguments about the second and eigth rules moot. Secondly, you interpreted the first rule to mean 'encyclopaedic content'. In my opinion, this is too narrow an interpretation to justify the vast majority of Misplaced Pages external links. I have interpreted the rule to mean that a website that does not contain a resource that the article would not, even after elevation to Featured Article status. These three main sites, although not NPOV (read: a disclaimer would be needed in the links section), provide a wealth of information about psionics in general and practical applications as well. Many of the people who come to this article may be interested in learning psionics, and no Misplaced Pages article can give them that. Therefore, in my opinion, these three main links provide that 'unique resource' that the brilliant prose would not contain. If you like, I would have no problem with us going to the Mediation Cabal to request a third opinion from the cabalists (I promise not to pick up this case myself). Firestorm 18:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

So... the people involved with the groups added links to each other as a trade off so they could agree to promote each other and get around the probhibitions on spamming themselves? Nifty trick that, but it doesn;t really work.

You say "Many of the people who come to this article may be interested in learning psionics" So find a good book you can list as an authoritative reference, or some reputable website and not just some little webcommunity run by just some guy with nothing behind it.

Mediation Cabal... you mean the not really real mediators who have just one guy show up who thinks he can make up consensus all by himself, thus violating all sorts of standard Misplaced Pages practices? And should I imply from that last statement that you are part of the group? No offense, but that's scary. No thanks, I'll pass. DreamGuy 18:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to go through the more official mediation channels, be my guest. I only mentioned the MedCab because they are informal and are just ordinary Wikipedians who try to solve disputes such as this. And no, the links from Veritas and such were not put up in any sort of cross-promotion scheme. Personally, I dont like Veritas, and as far as I am aware, none of them even know this article exists. Also, since you seem to not want these links here, I believe the burden to provide better ones is on you, not me. You can't simply say 'No, these links are unencyclopaedic. Find better ones.' I'd rather talk this out with you quietly over here, but if you want me to go to the AMA or even the ArbComm, then I will. Firestorm 20:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You're already suggesting ArbComm? You've got to kidding me? :Head asplodes: LOL, wow, you really are overreacting in a major way. I hope the other people involved in "cabal mediation" are a lot more grounded, because you're being quite silly here. But then I can see where the username came from.

For what it's worth, articles do not need to have external links. I am under no burden to personally replace any spam links removed with better/more encyclopedic links. I most certainly can say "No, these links are unencyclopaedic. Find better ones," provided a "if you want, or if not we can leave it empty for now. No big deal" is tacked on at the end. Furthermore, these sites have been spammed to multiple articles across Misplaced Pages and discussions have already been held elsewhere. The fundamental aspect here is that Misplaced Pages is not for free advertising of websites, nor is it a mere collection of links. These things have to have an encyclopedic purpose and be authoritative in some way, not just some minor, unuseful website. Certainly there must be a list of real books, real organization, probably even real websites, that could be found. Whether those are found yet or not really isn't the issue, just that the ones there are pretty poor quality. DreamGuy 21:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Reread your own comments on links here - and then remove or regroup the links on Satanic ritual abuse, where you fight to include not one but two separate links from what is -to quote your words- nothing but nonotable tiny "community" sites of no encyclopedic value added as spam links. I am all for keeping a link to the pro-Wiccan group there. But one, not two - and with a clearer label. sry for misplacing this, but the contrast between what you proclaim about links you don't linke here and what you do about links you like elsewhere is just ...very remarkable. Just for clarification: I make no statement about the validity of the psionics links above, I'd just love to see you to adhere to your own principles. Gwyndon 22:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

?!

This may support a "meatpuppet" hypothesis: Re.: PARTICIPATE IN ON-GOING WIKIPEDIA/BIGFOOT ARTICLE FORUM. Underlined in this is: BIGFOOT ARTICLE FORUM. Click on this to participate in this matter. Thought you might want to know this. Martial Law 00:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Also in the Re.: statement is that Misplaced Pages gets 10,000 hits per day. Martial Law 00:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

For all admins looking into Elonka's harassment

See Template:Mesopotamian mythology and its talk page... I had a dispute with another editor, explained my edits in the edit comments, and was called a vandal by this guy. Elonka showed up to revert me (when the other guy would have been blocked for 3RR if he had done it), and then she tried to pretend to be a neutral outside party, like a mediator, instead of the person with a highly emotional revenge RFC based upon misunderstandings of how things work in the works. Looks like she plans on stalking me like Gabrielsimon used to do, inserting herself into any conflict I have with anyone to escalate it to try to get back at me. It'd be one thing if this were an article or even a topic she was previously involved in, but she has no knowledge of it and is conveniently deciding automatically that what I say has no merit without looking into it.

Oh, also, FYI: The guy who I had the conflict with on that template apparently claims that Bishonen, Android, Haukur and some other unnamed admins are all my sockpuppets, the idea possibly planted by Elonka herself, because I don't enough know where this guy would have even heard of these people. DreamGuy 13:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And apparently the guy I am in a conflict with there is blindly reverting all of my improvements to Ereshkigal and Template:Mesopotamian myth (monsters) (he has a whole string of these templates witht he same basic problems) also. And also reverting Tiamat to reinsert the bad template. DreamGuy 14:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as your sock, I'm watching, and thinking of posting a message on ANI about this lot. I don't think Elonka reverted the template because she was stalking you, but because she'd received this remarkably frank advice to do it, just 8 minutes earlier. I don't think Geogre's going to like this, btw; only a couple of weeks ago, I was his sock. :-) Bishonen | talk 17:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC).

Oh shit, the truth is out! DreamAndroidBish79GuyOnen 18:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well now I am getting concerned. DreamGuy, do you have any evidence that User:Elonka is not who she claims to be, or that she is acting in bad faith? Was there some prior interation between you two before her creation of the Eenasul Fateh on the 20 January 2006 and your response on the 21st?

Yes she's trying to find support for an RFC on you. As we all know, that can be pretty daunting task - all the more difficult in this case, as it is more than likely that she will have to disentangle and disassociate herself from any of the many dubious characters and socks who have riled against you in the past.

Bishonen and Android79, you have both been cited above as supporting DreamGuy's claim that he was being harassed by Elonka. Is that the case, and did you actually check whether he was actually being harassed at the time or did you just assume that it looked plausible and followed a similar pattern as past harassment. You see, if we are to assume good faith, it still appears that Elonka responded to the AFD on Aladin (magician) and made a bad call on creating Eenasul Fateh. After being insulted for her trouble, she then tried to follow the steps in Dispute Resolution which advocates dialogue, only to receive stonewalling and message blanking in response.

Now I hope there is some reason to believe that things aren't just this simple, because otherwise the behaviour of all three of you is looking rather disappointing. Elonka looks like she is still proceeding towards an RFC, and the three of you here, just appear to be joking and pouring oil on troubled waters. Yes I know that its traditional to joke about the cabal and the like, but you should realise that not everyone will see it that way. -- Solipsist 20:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Solipsist, I'm not sure what your confusion is here... What's this not who she claims to be thing? And evidence of not acting in good faith? How about the fact that she's wikistalking me? Dispute resolution process is only for ongoing disputes, and the only reason there even is an ongoing dispute, such that it is, is that she is follwoing me around and harassing me, first on my talk page, then on the talk pages of nearly everyone I have interacted withlately, and then to blind revert my changes on a totally unrelated article and to cause trouble on its talk page. As I already explained to her, I removed the article we originally had a dispute on from my watch list, I have every intention of ignoring her, and she's obsessed and arranging to have ever spammer and POV-pusher I've dealt with to try to up the overall harassment. She calls everything that shows her in less than perfect light a "personal attack" so my pointing out that she was harassing me on this page was a "personal attack" and threatens admins whose talk pages have a discussion about her harassment on them to try to force them to remove this "personal attack"... Come on, enough is enough. The simple solution for this is to just ignore each other, but that only works if both sides do it, and she's not only not doing that, she's actively trying to escalate it on multiple fronts, and you appear to be encouraging her to do so instead of just walking away. Come on, get serious. I originally DID try to explain things to her, that dialogue the dispute resolution was about, but her only response was to ignore evrything I said and lash out at me some more, so it was then that it became clear that there was no way to resolve it to her satisfaction without doing exactly -- and I do mean exactly -- what she wanted, so I told her I was just going to ignore her and that she shouldn;t post on my talk page anymore, which she refused to do, posting here seven or more times until admins told her it was harassment and to stop, and then she accused those admins of not researching the situation and/or being to involved or protecting me or sockpuppets, etc... and you're trying to take a poke at us? Geez louise. DreamGuy 20:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Solipsist and the rest of you, I'm sorry, but I won't reply here as I can't afford to spend more time on this today. For my take on the conflict between Elonka and DreamGuy, please instead take a look at the account of it that I have just posted on WP:ANI. Comments are welcomed. Bishonen | talk 20:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC).

First of all, I asked about evidence for Elonka being a sockpuppet or acting in bad faith, because that appeared to be the case with a number of editors responding on the AfD on Aladin (magician). If there was reason to think she was just one of a gang of dodgy editors, I would say 'fair enough'. However, I rather suspect Elonka is who she appears to be and just wandered into a minefield on that AfD. If that is the case, then I don't think your responses have been entirely civil or fair.

I've no doubt there are some minor problems with the sequence of events that Elonka outlines at User:Elonka/DreamGuy dispute/Evidence-1 (e.g. your block over 3RR on the 20th wasn't correct, so its misdirected to draw attention to it), but in general they appear to be correct. As I see it, the key steps are;

• 03:50, 19 January 2006 - Elonka joins Talk:Aladin (magician) in response to RFC
• 22:15, 20 January 2006 - Elonka votes of AfD for Aladin (magician), including a comment which is disparages DreamGuy.
• 14:38, 20 January 2006 - Elonka creates the Eenasul Fateh - not the best idea given the active AfD, but is soon shown that this is a mistake on that articles talk page.
• 05:09, 21 January 2006 - DreamGuy posts a strong personal attack partially directed at Elonka.
• 14:15, 22 January 2006 - Elonka asks for an apology on DreamGuy's talk page.
• 15:06, 22 January 2006 - DreamGuy responds on User talk:Elonka simultaneously deleting the message from his own talk page. Unfortunately this response is also quite a strong personal attack.
• 17:11, 22 January 2006 - Elonka returns dialogue on DreamGuy's talk page.
• 07:23, 23 January 2006 - DreamGuy responds on User talk:Elonka, again deleting the discussion from his own page.
• On the next and subsequent rounds of discussion, DreamGuy no longer responds and just deletes Elonka's discussion - 09:24, 23 January 2006 and eventually asks User:Android79 to help prevent further 'harassment' 15:16, 24 January 2006.

In these exchanges, it seems to me that Elonka has made a few early mistakes and most likely didn't fully grasp that prior history on the Aladin AfD, but in general she has been rather level-headed and polite. DreamGuy's responses have been quite harsh.

Now you can try and characterise some of Elonka's subsequent actions as constructing an Attack Page, and soliciting responses from everyone who has had a prior disagreement with DreamGuy, but really they are pretty much what I would expect from a newish user trying to work out how to bring and RFC having failed to get any satisfaction from dialogue. -- Solipsist 22:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Solipsist, who're you talking to? I thought it was me, until you spoke of "your block over 3RR on the 20th", which surely can't refer to me. After you've gone to the trouble of collecting all those diffs, it mystifies me that you prefer to place your argument here, right after I tell you I'm short of time and invite you to discuss the matter on ANI. There it would be of use, and you would surely get some input on it. Bishonen | talk 22:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC).

I could have phrased that better, it was DreamGuy who was incorrectly blocked on the 20th. -- Solipsist 23:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break... "and most likely didn't fully grasp that prior history on the Aladin AfD" other than the fact that I explained it to her. "in general she has been rather level-headed and polite" you have got to be kidding. You realize David Gerard banned her indefinitely for her harassment and mentioned that the IP addresses she was using looked suspicious, right? And I was offering to let her back, I even did her recommended apology (though I didn't spam it to all the insane number of pages she wanted it on), and she ha:s made no efforts whatsoever to admit her wrongdoing and put the past in the past despite the overwhelming show that she was out of line? Let's get serious here. We don;t have to "try to characterize" some of her actions as harassment, it was. Period, full stop. And your insistence on arguing this -- even after I already did what you earlier suggested (apologize) and it hasn't helped any -- is starting to border on harassment itself. DreamGuy 22:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I see things are moving on apace at WP:ANI. Its not always easy to keep up. I'm not sure I agree with David Gerard over blocking the account, but maybe the ipcheck tells him more than I know. I'm just calling things as I see them, and so far I've yet to see any evidence that Elonka's account is anything other than I'm suggesting here. -- Solipsist 23:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi DreamGuy; Would it be accurate to say that this remark you made at Talk:Eenasul Fateh was based on a misunderstanding? If so, would you object if I removed it? Tom Harrison 16:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like things are getting back on track, and several good people are offering to mediate, so I'll bow out. If I can help, please let me know. Best regards, Tom Harrison 17:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with that comment? No, you cannot remove it. There may have been some misunderstandings, but it's clear that she and the people she was working with do, in fact, have wikilawyering down to a science and clearly was not following policy and still managed to get done what she wanted done even though it was against all policies and common sense. DreamGuy 19:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Beckjord

No, I was speaking about myself when I referred to a last ditch effort to assume good faith.--MONGO 19:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thought so, but it was a little ambiguous, and beckjord try to claim you were pointing out that i had bad faith, so I figured I'd ask. DreamGuy 19:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

More ? / Found "missing info"

Go to www.network54.com then click on "WIKIPEDIA has probably 10,000 hits a day on BIGFOOT. ALSO PG FILM".

Turn the "pages" and you'll see these:

"Wikipedians please read--seeking mentor", and "Wikians After Fair Edits--WAFE-GO TO WIKI BIGFOOT PAGE". Find removed info. here. Page format on bottom is this: <<<1234567890>>> on the bottom of the webpage. Does this lead help ? Martial Law 00:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wicca infobox

I found it easy to agree with you here regarding the infobox. It is superfluous as well as very poorly designed. Most of the linked pages are either pointing to unrelated articles (The Goddess being a fine example), or simply do not yet exist. Thank you for taking care of that misshapen abortion of an infobox.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 00:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am just so sick and tired of people creating infoboxes that just do not add anything useful and instead have bad links and so forth and taking it upon themselves to force them on a bunch of articles without even discussing it first.Somebody creating something used across a variety of articles on a certain topic needs to get input from the editors on the articles all across the topic about whether such a thing is even desired or helpful and then if so hammering out what goes in it based upon a broad consensus across the affects articles. DreamGuy 02:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Elonka

I don't know if you've communicated directly with each other, but if you haven't you should. (I accept my indefinite block was probably wrong now.) If you can't see a way to drawing a line under this mess that Elonka would also accept, I'd be happy to work on mediating to try to leave us with two reasonably happy Wikipedians - David Gerard 16:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also started a new subject on WP:ANI, "Elonka mess", and unblocked her - David Gerard 17:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Archive pages

I highly suggest you stop reverting my change to the archive page in question. Go to one of the admins who have fully endorsed your picture of the dispute, and ask them to do so - I suggest Bish. Like I said before - plague both houses. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I highly suggest you lose the attitude and start following policies... I have reported this to the Admin's noticeboard. Don't say I didn't try to politely warn you that what you were doing was way out of line. DreamGuy 19:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)