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 This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current.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, your posts are not welcome here. (This includes certain "admins" who only got their position through sucking up.) 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 mean 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 + tab next to "edit this page" at the top of the screen).

"Finished" articles

No, I am not an admin, but I do know that you cannot tell how an article will finish until it's finished, hence my quite reasonable request to let me finish. Rather than get into an editing/revert war with you I deleted the aticle. Having started 95 articles here I hope I know something about writing them. Jack1956 (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

An article doesn't have to be "finished" to see that it isn't a noteworthy topic for a Wikipedia article. In this case the person was only noteworthy for her association with a killer. The killer already had an extensive article. It's been a standard practice on Wikipedia to not create separate articles for topics which already are covered in other articles to the full extent that they are noteworthy. If she would have been noteworthy for something other than that there may have been an argument for a separate article. Anything of note in her life should be added to that article, and of course only to the extent that it would be notable there. Otherwise she's just not notable. DreamGuy (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I took your point. I had another long look at the article, saw that there was little that I could say that hadn't already been said, and deleted it. Jack1956 (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Image:Thomasopenshaw1.jpg

My edit summary was incorrect, but the image still does not fit any criteria for speedy deletion: List it on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, please. Thanks! —BorgHunter (talk) 19:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder

Hi DreamGuy,

Thought you'd be interested in knowing - the DID page has been reverted and a call made for discussion for such a major revision. I couldn't identify many changes to the page (table to paragraph, split controversy out of lead into its own section, I believe a section re-order, I'm guessing some content changes and a replacement of external links). Some of the changes I agree with, some I'm probably unaware of, and irrespective there's probably a need for dialog, if nothing else than to convince others of the merits of your changes.

Also, I know you're not archiving but have you considered an archive bot? No fuss, no muss, and it's automatic. WLU (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

My edit wasn't a "major revision" -- it put it back to the version before someone else made an extreme wholesale change to the entire article in order to push his own personal opinion onto it. And I see that the editing after someone else reverted it has put back some of the most important content, so obviously I had good reason to do it.

No real need for an archive bot, and it just adds extra files for Wikipedia to hold onto. The history is always there, I see no need to make a whole other set of files that reduplicate the information. DreamGuy (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with your comment about replacing content/having merit, and I'll raise you a 'please review the page to see if there's any further changes you think should be un-revered.' I liked your conversion of the table into a paragraph, I'm sure there's others but it's hard to see it as a wholesale rather than section-by-section change. I'd say the page needs a good skeptical editor 'cause between 'swallowed hole' and 'bollocks' is a good page.

Anyway, hope you maintain an interest on the page. WLU (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion ongoing at Talk:Jack the Ripper

Just so you know, there's still discussion going on at Jack the Ripper. Don't know if you've seen any of it, so I figured I'd notify you in case you wished to participate and work towards a compromise. --clpo13_(talk) 01:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no real discussion going on there at all, just people complaining about edit warring while they themselves edit war for vanity reasons instead of improving this encyclopedia. Work towards a compromise? Funny, everything I do is ignored and blind reverted, and you yourself post inaccurate info about me (such as the false claim that I never gave any reasons for my edits). Can't really compromise with a group of people who violate policy and gang revert things for no reason. I think perhaps you should talk to those people who are the problem. DreamGuy (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Even so, discussing on an article talk page is always a good idea. Reverting and re-reverting (by both parties) serves only to inflame the situation. Also, for the third time, would you please point out where your reasons/previous discussion occurred? I can't find any mention of it, which doesn't mean I'm ignoring it. Please, assume good faith and work with other editors instead of against them, even if they're working against you. --clpo13_(talk) 02:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud, the reasons were mentioned earlier when it first came up, both in my edit comments and on the talk page, and now I have also added it again to the talk page in recent comments. If you can't find them you clearly are either completely unable or unwilling to. And, for the record, working with editors when they are working against you isn't working at all. I've been heroic in my attempt to assume good faith despite very clear evidence that people aren't making any. If you want me to assume good faith then you will have to at least make a small attempt at doing something that could be interpreted as good faith instead of continually making false accusations about my behavior and demanding I do things that you and others don't even try to do. DreamGuy (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, where? I'm not talking about your recent comments; those comments mentioned some previous reasons/discussion, which is what I'm referring to. Just provide some diffs and there will be no question about the issue at all. If you'd prefer, we can finish this discussion on the talk page, where I raised similar issues. --clpo13_(talk) 04:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, how can you NOT see it? So now you say you see the recent ones, but that's not good enough, and you want me to point out old ones, because... what... I ahve to say something 10 times before you'll acknowledge it once? DreamGuy (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

All right, all right. This isn't very productive. I think the problem is that our opinions on how much policy matters differs greatly, which may explain why I don't see any good reasons and you do. So, with that in mind, I'll quietly drop the matter here and constrain my discussion of it to the JtR talk page. --clpo13_(talk) 04:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Which policy is violated?

There seems to be a revert war going on about policy violation at Jack the Ripper. I don't understand. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The policy violated depends upon the section in question. The external link is a violation of WP:COI, WP:SPAM AND WP:EL, as explained multiple times. The big duplicate article about the Whitechapel Murders is a clear unambiguous violation of WP:CFORK. The content about the EFIT photo made for a documentary but not following standard EFIT protocol and not mentioned in any encyclopedic source is a violation of WP:ENC, WP:UNDUE, and a whole laundry list of others (notability, reliable sources, etc.). The constant blind reverting of everything I do is a clear violation of WP:AGF and any number of other rules on editor conduct.

As you say on your user page, "The truly weird and harmful to Wikipedia's credibility as an encylcopedia are those editors who insist on content that diverges from the Real WorldTM's understanding of a topic.", and that's what a nice little gang of people on the Ripper articles have decided to do.... one of them, USer:Arcayne, even specifically says anyone who is an expert in the field must be a crank and therefore their statements should not be included and that the only good sources are the ones who don't normally write about the topic. The articles about the Ripper are over time become more and more out of step with reality, to the point where it's become a topic of conversation by those in the field. DreamGuy (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that you were the person who blind reverted the article with the edit comment that it needs to be clarified on the talk page when you apparently didn't even look at the talk page before writing that. It's getting very tedious with people saying things need to be discussed first when they are the ones ignoring the discussion. DreamGuy (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)