User talk:DreamGuy

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 This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current.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

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

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

More help?

Once again, I call upon your services as a hardcore rationality warrior. Joan Marie Whelan is full of... shall we say, unsubstantiated claims. Care to take a look? DS (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to fix a little, but it needed more than what I could really do... but I did see that it was a recreation of an article deleted in October for being spamvertising of someone who fails WP:BIO and has no reliable sources for notability, so I tagged as a speedy delete. DreamGuy (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

On The Right Track

Wikipedia has been littered with a lot of egotistical, trivial junk in the chess variants area that is generally not realized to be junk by outsiders to our hobby.

Although I like Christian Freeling, he is just an inventor of a couple of known games but not a notable person who has accomplished great things of encyclopediac importance. So, the deletion you proposed recently was an appropriate, measured response. Besides, this was just a stub that hardly any editors had worked on.

What you may not yet realize is that a full article exists that several editors have worked on for Ed Trice. Unfortunately, he is no more notable than Christian Freeling. In my objective, informed opinion, he is just an unethical egomaniac who has worked very hard at misleading a number of well-intentioned editors into believing that he is a giant in the chess variant community. Take a few moments to check-out the disruptive, fictitious edit history of this page and it will verify my assertion. Perhaps, you should also propose its deletion?

--BenWillard —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC).

Well, the claim that he assisted in solving checkers was overstated in my opinion -- as no news article mentioned him, and the person who did solve it listed him as one of many, many people who provided some help, with his name being only among the database people and not noteworthy over all those other people -- and so I removed it. Otherwise I'm not really in a position to know whether the claims to notability are accurate or not. I'm not familiar with the chess sources quoted, how he compares to other chess players, and so forth. Some of the article does sound pretty trivial and thus not encyclopedic, but I don't have the background knowledge to know for sure. I sympathize with you in that the situation you describe is something I see in many articles, and could very well be the case here, but I'm not the best person to help you out in sorting it out. DreamGuy (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Final Destination Pages

Thank you for cleaning these pages up. I've been trying to do so over the last few months and it's extremely difficult to do so when you're the only one that seems to be doing it and every edit gets questioned. Hopefully having a second opinion from a well-established user cleaning it up will help keep the fans at bay. Thanks again! --13² 18:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you wouldn't mind it'd be cool if you could take a look at Final Destination 2 and Final Destination (series). They don't get hit as much as the first and third films, but they could both use some cleanup. Thanks! --13² 18:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

vampire too

• i had my doubts too Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Grand chess references

I observe that you're not satisfied with the references we have for Grand chess, and you seem to feel these references are not notable enough. These are basically all of the references out there for Grand chess, and if they're not good enough, it's time to delete the article.

Whether something is notable or not notable enough for the Wikipedia is a very subjective judgment and one that results in countless arguments. I feel that the references we have for Grand chess and the information and size of the article makes a nice little overview of one of the most popular chess variants out there. If this isn't notable enough for the Wiki, we're going to have to remove a lot of articles about chess variants here.

On a related subject, I feel that the Gothic chess article is probably too long, and that the Ed Trice article should be deleted (Mr. Trice is simply not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article). Just to clarify (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

27 Club

Greetings, DreamGuy. I've started a new discussion thread at Talk:27 Club#Musicians who died at 26 or 28. Feel free to join in. Note also that I modified your recent edit of the article with this edit and this one. (If you reply here I will see what you say, but it might be better to have any further discussion take place on the article's talk page. Thanks.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Annie Chapman

Hi DG, I would like to take the opportunity to apologise to you over the recent Annie Chapman image dispute. I was acting in good faith and genuinely thought the image was copyright expired. I was wrong and you were right. I hope you will accept my apology in the spirit in which it is offered. Jack1956 (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I appreciate the apology. I do hope that you will not try (or support anyone who tries) to upload it and put a "fair use" tag on it, as it clearly does not qualify for that either. Apparently some of the editors who expressed n early opinion and turned out to be proven wrong were upset about it and seem to want to find some excuse to have it up anyway. That would be an example of bad faith, unlike your earlier mistaken idea about its legal status. DreamGuy (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point and I would not support any attempt to reupload the image. As I said, it was a genuine mistake on my part made in good faith and I would oppose any bad faith attempts to reinstate it. Jack1956 (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

List of serial killers by country expand list tag

Hello DreamGuy, I noticed the removal of the expand list tag from List of serial killers by country and wanted to drop you a note. I disagree with its removal. The tag is a good faith way of asking readers to help expand it, just like stub templates. It is the subject matter that invites persistent unconstructive edits and vandalism, not the expand list tag. Thanks, momoricks (make my day) 00:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, the tag is almost completely pointless anywhere, but it's actively damaging on any list which is already quite substantial. If we only had ten people listed there, sure, then we could maybe especially invite anyone who doesn't already know they can edit to edit. That would be a good comparison to a stub page. This article clearly has no reason to have that tag at the top. DreamGuy (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I won't reinstate the tag. I appreciate you help with maintaining that list. Regards, momoricks (make my day) 01:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war at Discrimination against atheists. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.  Sandstein  22:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)