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 This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current.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.

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 Wikipedia policy which you should have read in the first place.

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

Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections

The ideal, like many, is not unreachable. Lists are poor. So what is your objection here? / edg ☺ ★ 21:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that lists are poor, but the wording as included there includes "ideal" as if it were something we would like to do and not be bothered if we can;t because it's just an ideal. I think we want the same thing, but the wording you are defending makes it less likely to happen, in my opinion. Trying something else if you like. DreamGuy

Reverting given name template

DreamGuy, I was going to revert the removal of the external links to the given name template just for the purposes of adding the debated template to the external links page so that the discussion would be illuminated by the current example. If you know of another way to do this without reverting the removal of the external links, feel free to do that instead. Remember 21:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, that's fine. I can always remove it again later after the discussion says those links are inappropriate, though the "Given Name" part up top doesn't work and isn't part of this discussion. DreamGuy 23:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to your message on the Sudoku talk page

Here. I hope you will not ignore me because of my apparent lack of an account. --59.61.95.18 08:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've not ignored it, but policy here says you're wrong, so I will go with what that says instead of what you say. DreamGuy 22:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Apology from the "IP vandal"

Hey, I'm sorry for all the harrassment and vandalism that's been going on here from a bunch of IPs I use (66.82.9.77, 66.82.9.54, 69.19.14.18, and probably others, all from HughesNet/DirecWay ISP). Apparently, my brother decided it'd be funny to get on my computer and vandalize things. He claimed he was on a vendetta against you, but I really have no clue why. Anyways, I'm really sorry for all of it. I've made sure it won't happen again. --69.19.14.44 08:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Given name template

I see that you have taken away the external links to the given name template. I am happy to defer to the consensus of the community on this matter (which I had been trying to gather), but as of yet I do not believe we have any consensus (since it is just you and I talking about this matter).

I understand that you think that the onus is on me to gather consensus before adding these links to the template, but I would appreciate it if you could somehow create an example of the previous template before removing it from the discussion page. Otherwise, I feel that no one will understand exactly what we are talking about.

Also, I was wondering whether you knew of any other way to get the community to take a look at this issue and discuss it because we have not received any comments on this matter as of yet. Remember 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You've had your chance, more than one editor has said those llinks are inappropriate only to you who wants them there, they violate WP:EL and you never got consensus in the first place to put them there. I don't know why you expect the whole project to just sit by forever while you shop around trying to get people to agree with you. You should have gotten that first. I already let you put them back to try to get additional input a while back, and you aren't getting anywhere, so enough is enough. You can still try to have a discussion on it without the templates being your version. DreamGuy 22:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I simply asked if you could create the template to show the example while on the discussion page. If you cannot do so, then I will have to find others who can. Remember 12:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To do so would create a whole new template containing the spam links, which serves no purpose other than to continue the spam. People can discuss it without actually seeing it. You say the link, tadah. Why are you so insistent on making a template with those links? Furthermore you posted there to get feedback after someone else said it was inappropriate and you wanted to see, then you hear it was in fact inappropriate, but you STILL won't let go. You don't get to keep asking and asking until you get the answer you wanted in the first place. DreamGuy 09:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mermaids in popular culture

Mermaids in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Mermaids in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mermaids in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Mermaids in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eyrian 21:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Just the people going around trying to delete all the "in popular culture" articles for no in policy reason. Same old nonsense as before. If it does get deleted it will eventually just get spun off from the main article yet again. It's a waste of time for everyone involved. DreamGuy 22:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Attempt at consensus-building

In an attempt to keep the discussion on the Photo editing talk page in the direction of reaching an agreeable resolution, I have tried to find a slightly different approach. I would really appreciate your constructive criticism on the post that I just made, please see Talk:Photo_editing#Trying_to_establish_some_common_ground. Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 13:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy will be gone for a few days

I'm currently moving halfway cross the country. No Internet installed at new location yet. Will be back when I am.

Don't nobody destroy Wikipedia while I'm gone or I'll be forced to super double plus revert y'all when I get back. DreamGuy 05:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have limited access on my laptop via wireless. Not enough to do much, but I am around here and there. DreamGuy 19:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Um...

Not sure if that was intentional or not, but your bit about being gone for a few days replaced my note about Wikipedia:Guide to Layout. In case it was accidental, there's some stuff on the talk page that might be of interest to you. I'll leave this here for you when you get back on Wikipedia. Cheers! Editmaniac 06:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hermes in popular culture

Hermes in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Hermes in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermes in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Hermes in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eyrian 18:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

At this point since you are just going through and tagging all articles of the same basic style as needing deletion before setting up any consensus on the issue and while ignoring key Wikipedia policies, at this point you should be blocked as a gross violator of the WP:POINT policy for wasting everyone's time having to vote on all of these when they are all for the same argument. DreamGuy 19:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder

Dear DreamGuy, for each brief quote from a university journal, can I add it immediately to the article Dissociative identity disorder, or must I first post it in the article Dissociative identity disorder's discussion page each time? For example, I'd like to add this quote, under the section Dissociative_identity_disorder#Treatment: "Hypnosis can be useful in teaching patients about the dissociative nature of their symptoms by helping them to gain control over transitions among personality states, with the goal of improving internal communication and integrating disparate aspects of their identity." (Stanford University School of Medicine, The American Journal of Psychiatry, 2006, http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/163/4/566). Standardname 22:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

DreamGuy, please refrain from making personal attacks or reality-distorting statements on my talk page. Other people put up with your bullying, and for some reason admins have seen fit to let you get away with it, but I will not tolerate it. I reverted Dissociative Identity Disorder because User:Standardname (who has been warned not for POV violations as you claimed, but for violating WP:3RR, and was rightly disciplined for it) had included sourced statements from well respected scholarly journals in the field and because you blindly reverted them while screaming 'POV' and not actually discussing the matter on the talk page. This makes it seem as though you are pushing a POV of your own about the state of the controversy. If this is not the case then discuss on the talk page how the addition of these sources undermines or otherwise fails to show the consensus in the scholarly community. I have no opinion on the matter of DID myself, as I am not a patient, psychologist, or psychiatrist, and I have only the most rudimentary training in psychology on the university level. If you, however, have some credentials or are somehow or in someway an expert in this field, let us know, because it will (to anyone with a brain) make your 'knowledge' of what scholarly consensus is seem more credible. As it is, you are claiming that User:Standardname is pushing a POV that I (and it appears, many other editors) just plain cannot perceive here. If you have inside knowledge about how this information is 'pushing' a POV that is not scholarly consensus, discuss it on the talk page, and make sure you do it civilly. CaveatLector^Talk 21:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)