replying to editor wikistalking me and giving misleading edit comments |
|||
Line 224: | Line 224: | ||
::Did you even look at my edits? No, you just now did what you have been accusing me of doing. You blind-reverted [[Werewolf]]. How can I tell that you didn't look at it? Because your reversion restored some of the la-la land mythology stuff that you rail against. Last sighting: present day? Werewolves are primates? (sarcastic) Yeah, I'm sure you approve of that stuff. (/sarcastic). '''If''' you'd looked before reverting, you would have noticed that your flawed version restored that stuff. Thus, I believe you didn't look. Please stop making accusations against me that can be easily disproven. It just makes you look bad in the end. And, what page conflict are you talking about? Are you referring to our disagreement on the talk page of [[Dragon]]? That kind of stuff happens all the time. I disagree with lots of people on talk pages, on AfD debates, and on RFCN. As to looking at your edit history, as I said before, when I see a user make what seems to me like several highly questionable edits in the same style, I inspect their edit history to see if any similar edits have been made. Then I evaluate the edits in context of the article and revert the parts that seem bad. MOST of your edits were good. Even on the ones I reverted, I sometimes found that you'd done some good and some bad, so I only reverted the bad. What's wrong with that? If you hadn't kept bringing up my edits and complaining about it, I would have forgotten all about it by now. As I told you already, I revert a LOT of people. Try not to take it personally. [[User:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea|Mermaid from the Baltic Sea]] 03:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC) |
::Did you even look at my edits? No, you just now did what you have been accusing me of doing. You blind-reverted [[Werewolf]]. How can I tell that you didn't look at it? Because your reversion restored some of the la-la land mythology stuff that you rail against. Last sighting: present day? Werewolves are primates? (sarcastic) Yeah, I'm sure you approve of that stuff. (/sarcastic). '''If''' you'd looked before reverting, you would have noticed that your flawed version restored that stuff. Thus, I believe you didn't look. Please stop making accusations against me that can be easily disproven. It just makes you look bad in the end. And, what page conflict are you talking about? Are you referring to our disagreement on the talk page of [[Dragon]]? That kind of stuff happens all the time. I disagree with lots of people on talk pages, on AfD debates, and on RFCN. As to looking at your edit history, as I said before, when I see a user make what seems to me like several highly questionable edits in the same style, I inspect their edit history to see if any similar edits have been made. Then I evaluate the edits in context of the article and revert the parts that seem bad. MOST of your edits were good. Even on the ones I reverted, I sometimes found that you'd done some good and some bad, so I only reverted the bad. What's wrong with that? If you hadn't kept bringing up my edits and complaining about it, I would have forgotten all about it by now. As I told you already, I revert a LOT of people. Try not to take it personally. [[User:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea|Mermaid from the Baltic Sea]] 03:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Yes, I did in fact look at the edits.... overall blind reverts with half-hearted rational for restoring some small portion (although even those explanations don't conform to Wikipedia policies) and not even discussing all the many and varied other blatant and unquestionably badly needed changes. I also see you repeat over and over that I never gave explanations for my edits when I did, or claiming you have consensus when anytime it's more than just you and I discussing the issues the other editors have always agreed with me. So please dispense with all the finger pointing and actually make an effort to start following policies here. 21:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Your anger towards me== |
|||
Apparently, you've gotten really upset about some of my edits. I'm not stalking you, and I'm not blind reverting your material. You, however, do seem to be hastily undoing my reversions of your material, even when I only reverted part of your material. |
Apparently, you've gotten really upset about some of my edits. I'm not stalking you, and I'm not blind reverting your material. You, however, do seem to be hastily undoing my reversions of your material, even when I only reverted part of your material. |
||
Line 236: | Line 237: | ||
:I already have multiple admins alerted to you actions. You followed my edit history to some seven or more random articles with often nothing in common with each other to do nothing but revert a number of badly needed edits I made, and gave edit comments that were highly deceptive. Furthermore your comments above clearly picked the one article you thought you could most justify your actions on, and even there not really because the reference section wasn't something I did, and the alleged "cite" for a claim you say needs a cite is just some nobody's vanity website and not the official site who would have the real information (not that I think the information in question is at all controversial enough to honestly require a cite, but, hell, certainly not a spam cite). [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] 02:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC) |
:I already have multiple admins alerted to you actions. You followed my edit history to some seven or more random articles with often nothing in common with each other to do nothing but revert a number of badly needed edits I made, and gave edit comments that were highly deceptive. Furthermore your comments above clearly picked the one article you thought you could most justify your actions on, and even there not really because the reference section wasn't something I did, and the alleged "cite" for a claim you say needs a cite is just some nobody's vanity website and not the official site who would have the real information (not that I think the information in question is at all controversial enough to honestly require a cite, but, hell, certainly not a spam cite). [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] 02:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
::If you've gotten admins, let them look at my actions! I'm not afraid of my edit history. If you want, I can go article by article and pick apart all the little details of why I reverted parts of your edits and why YOUR subsequent actions were in fact the blind reversions that you keep accusing me of. Shall we discuss [[Dilbert]]? I don't think that admins will find your edits there very nice. You'd probably be happier if they don't look there. If I am called to offer explanations, I can offer them for all my edits. If I had reverted your last 50 edits, or something like that, then you would have a reason to get as upset as you've gotten. But I honestly don't see why you think that reverting a handful of your edits, after careful consideration of their merits, is such a big deal. Especially when I only reverted them once or twice, not even going near 3RR territory. Especially when I've repeatedly admitted that I do inspect the edit history of people who are making (what seems to me) questionable edits. I've reversed a lot of damage to Wikipedia that way. Some people go around deleting large sections from every article, because they believe all articles should be very short, and its a good habit to go look and see how many articles they may have done that to. And if my reversion of their work isn't the consensus, someone else will come along and undo my work. And where did I lose to you? What revenge was I supposedly trying to get on you? Refresh my memory. I have trouble believing that anything you've done to me has been that bad. [[User:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea|Mermaid from the Baltic Sea]] 04:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC) |
::If you've gotten admins, let them look at my actions! I'm not afraid of my edit history. If you want, I can go article by article and pick apart all the little details of why I reverted parts of your edits and why YOUR subsequent actions were in fact the blind reversions that you keep accusing me of. Shall we discuss [[Dilbert]]? I don't think that admins will find your edits there very nice. You'd probably be happier if they don't look there. If I am called to offer explanations, I can offer them for all my edits. If I had reverted your last 50 edits, or something like that, then you would have a reason to get as upset as you've gotten. But I honestly don't see why you think that reverting a handful of your edits, after careful consideration of their merits, is such a big deal. Especially when I only reverted them once or twice, not even going near 3RR territory. Especially when I've repeatedly admitted that I do inspect the edit history of people who are making (what seems to me) questionable edits. I've reversed a lot of damage to Wikipedia that way. Some people go around deleting large sections from every article, because they believe all articles should be very short, and its a good habit to go look and see how many articles they may have done that to. And if my reversion of their work isn't the consensus, someone else will come along and undo my work. And where did I lose to you? What revenge was I supposedly trying to get on you? Refresh my memory. I have trouble believing that anything you've done to me has been that bad. [[User:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea|Mermaid from the Baltic Sea]] 04:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::Admins have looked at your actions and they do think you are in error. Some have even discussed this on talk pages. And, while you losing out on the discussion over external links on the Dragon article should not be a big deal to any normal editor here, it's clear you got extremely overwrought about it, making long rambling rants and denials that anyone ever gave reasons (despite multiple editors giving very strong reasons), and it's also clear that it was immediately after that that you went on your blind revert rampage. If you have a dispute with someone one and don;t get your way, it's very poor form to try to take the dispute to a good portion of his edit history to try to "win" elsewhere. You need to start following Wikipedia policies here, namely [[WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND]][[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] 21:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Random anonymous comment== |
|||
I personally think Elonka has a boarderline personality disorder, she has proven incapable of getting along with other editors here at Wikipedia. [[User:12.154.210.2|12.154.210.2]] 03:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Disambig piping == |
== Disambig piping == |
Revision as of 21:05, 28 April 2007
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.
69.50.208.4
If the individual at the IP address 69.50.208.4 is reading this, please stop trying to reset my password... I got some 30 or more emails telling me you want to know what it is, and they can be traced back to you easily enough. DreamGuy 22:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm having the same problem.--Robbstrd 18:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, and I've had it happen some 500+ times since then. The talk page User_talk:69.50.208.4 shows it's not an isolated problem. I just reported it to WP:ANI so hopefully something will be done about it. DreamGuy 23:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Cursory
You have been mentioned in the most cursory way, here [1]. Based on some corespondence with Sidaway concerning the dismissal of votes on Religion and schizotypy. Frankly it's hilarious to see that our position was more than justified a year after the fact! There are no mentions of Joan of Arc or Mohammed et al in that article as it stands. Justification! Justification! (har...) Also good to see you still bangin' away at this thing. Best Regards, Hamster Sandwich 01:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppet template
Hello :-) I removed the outdated sockpuppet template. There is no further need for this to be on your user page. If it gets replaced, I will protect your user page. Happy editing. FloNight 01:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks... There are some pretty hard core harassers here. Basically some editors who months and months ago objected to the fact that I got articles/content deleted that was something spammy or unencyclopedic they wanted in and they've been gunning for me ever since. DreamGuy 05:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
RfA
Hi. Did you mean to do this? [2]? --Guinnog 06:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- What the hell... no... looks like I jumped in to the article by following someone's post from their contribution page and replied to an old version instead of the current one... obviously not trying to delete comments, as the time stamp up top is old. DreamGuy 06:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, cool. I think I repaired the damage, but maybe you could look it over for me and check I've done it right. Another !vote had been cast in the interim so it wasn't just a simple revert. Cheers. --Guinnog 06:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
(followup) Thank you for participating in my RfA. The nomination was unsuccessful, but I intend to continue with my support of Wikipedia. In the meantime, and I mean this sincerely, I would very much like to find some way that you and I could get past our previous dispute, and be able to work together in the future. I believe that we have many common areas of interest, where we could be more effective on Wikipedia as allies -- I think that ultimately we share a common goal of improving Wikipedia. If you would like to contact me, on or off wiki, to have a good faith discussion, I am open to it. --Elonka 09:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- "The nomination was unsuccessful" -- That's the most encouraging news about the prospects of the future of Wikipedia that I've heard in a long time.
- " I would very much like to find some way that you and I could get past our previous dispute" -- :That's easy:
- Stop vanity posting articles about yourself, your friends, and your relatives. None of them are very significant at all, and adding them just cheapens the project. Beyond just adding vanity articles, you and your friends go and add links to these articles on grossly inappropriate articles, such as "List of notable people who live in _whatever city_" and etc. And stop complaining when peopl try to pare those articles and mentions back to more realistic levels.
- Admit that you were grossly out of line in your wikistalking, harassment, and demands that any criticism of your activity be deleted from talk page of articles and users. Until you get that those actions were extremely out of line, you'll likely just revert doing to the same thing anytime another similar situation arises whether it be with myself or anyone.
- Contribute to the project consistently without reverting to the behaviors listed above. I'm all about actions, not words. Prove yourself.
- Wouldn't it be better for you to sit back and let other people -- ones who are not your friends already or involved in a team of "you write about me, I'll write about you" edits -- mention you and your relatvies and etc. if and when they think it is relevant? Then you'd have outside validation for your noteworthiness. Similarly, a good number of supporters you've had for your admin attempt and defending you elsewhere clearly were not doing so because they really respected you but because they wanted someone to help in their harassment agaist me. You allied yourself with some very disreputable people solely to try to strike at me, and a number of them are still hanging on, but your association with them certainly only dragged you down. Editing an encyclopedia is about quality of information, not let's go join in with the spammers, POV-pushers, some guy who was using Wikipedia as a free hosting site for all the photos of him posting with Z-list music celebrities and so forth who complain about me because I took very necessary actions to remove all that crap. If you had good intentions to start with, you certainly ended up quite used by a number of people whose activities here I bet you would have opposed quite strongly if you had run into them first before you were looking for allies against me.
- Hell, and the original dispute that started your animosity derived from defending a clearly fraudulent individual creating a vanity/spam article through the use of sockpuppets and presenting information that was false and/or highly deceptive. If you'd taken the time to investigate that like many of us were doing at the time instead of showing up quite misinformed and angrily lashing out -- which is why it was a logical conclusion that you were another sockpuppet account of his, or, as I said, someone duped by one. As it was, you were fooled, which in itself is no big deal, but it's one's reaction when a mistake is pointed out that judges their character, and unfortunately you failed that test quite dramatically because you refused to believe you could be fooled. DreamGuy 23:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Notability of A Book of Mermaids
I guess my defense would be this: A Book of Mermaids is, in an of itself, not notable. But it is a small, linked thread in a wonderfully large fabric of history and knowledge about fairy tales that has been painstakingly compiled by many, many Wiki users. The author of this book, Ruth Manning-Sanders is one of the most important collectors and tellers of fairy tales in the 20th century. As you can see from her bio page, we are in the process of cataloging information about her dozens of fairy-tale compilations. By listing the contents of these books, as we have with A Book of Mermaids and many others, we are able to link to entries about many core tales that have been told and retold over the centuries. Currently, two tales from this book: The Magical Tune and The Groach of the Isle of Lok are linked into the greater fabric of the fairy tale history compiled on Wikipedia. I think there is value in this. By compiling the contents of these fairy tale compilations, we can find connections and trace the history of these tales. Andrew Lang's Fairy Books are another example of how this is being done with the contents of books that might otherwise be considered non-notable, in and of themselves. Otto1970 05:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Any further thoughts, discussion, etc., on whether this book still needs to be tagged as having its notability questioned? Otto1970 08:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
your kitty picture actually made me yawn!
It would be helpful if you would link from Talk:Mythology to a diff between your preferred version and the other editor's preferred version. — coelacan talk — 03:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Re:Sources
First please assume good faith, I also defy you to find one other article that I’ve edited on that you’ve edited on (apart from enforcing that sockpuppet tag, which was perhaps wrong and perhaps right, I’ve been told it was a grey area). Other than that, you won’t be able to, thus your wikistalking accusation is false.
A forum discussion does not constitute expert opinion as it is impossible to determine which of those are experts and which are not. As you’ve also contributed to that forum discussion, it is a conflict of interest as is citing onself to which you have done with your “Ripper Notes” magazine to which I turned a blind eye to in order not to get into an edit conflict with you. I would have actually to nearly every article that cited an open forum as a source. However, I am pretty sure you can find more appropriate sources.
Believe it or not, I do actually believe that the Jack the Ripper e-fit is a bit of a farce and that only a few witnesses will have seen the face, and that is unreliable. Englishrose 09:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Assume good faith is for instances when you are unsure... you have a long, demonstrated history here of stalking me, so there's no room for doubt about your intentions.
- And now you want to try to put me into a ridiculous position of demanding I come up with sources to cite that meet a certain level of quality and then try to tell me I can't cite the leading professional journal on the topic, as it's supposedly a "conflict of interest"?? Give me a break. It's not like I write the whole thing myself, it has a long line of contributors of all the top talent in the field, with three different editors, extensively referenced by others. And I have never cited anything I wrote.
- As far as finding "more appropriate sources" -- uh, no... for breaking news, until a journal gets a chance to report on it, the leading website on the case is it. But of course even after a journal mentions it, you'd be trying to argue I can't cite that either. But you think whatever nonsense gets picked up in crappy news coverage and full of errors is fine? Great... DreamGuy 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Edit to mythology
I was disturbed by your revert to "the last good version" in part because this doesn't help an interested editor to understand what's going on. I believe the recommended way to do a revert is to indicate the Date and time of the version you're reverting to.
What your revision has done is negate all the time and effort which I and several other subsequent editors have put into this article which had been on a back log of articles needing a copyedit. See Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages#Reverting
My understanding of the Wiki spirit is embodied in the idea of improve instead of delete. I would feel a lot better about your actions if you would undo your reversion and see if you might selectively replace offending parts and leave those that are not objectionable in the revision you prefer.
I can see, in part, your thinking about someone making changes to an article without reading all the discussion which has past, however, in taking this stance wouldn't it be better if you, too, respect the effort which has gone into an article which you hadn't participated in for a period of time. You didn't notice, for example, that the League of Copyeditors posted a notice on the talk page about having made changes to the article. A lot of water passed under the bridge since you made your last edit and you seem to have completely ignored that.
Let's try to work together to make this into a top notch article. OK? --JAXHERE | Talk 15:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sometimes the best way to improve IS TO delete. Thanks for showing up to "copy edit" but it doesn't help when you introduce errors left and right because you don't know what you are talking about and don't even bother to read the extensive discussions on the article talk page. And, frankly, the "copy editing" is really rather poor. I don't know who the self-appointed copy editors are, but I am a professional editor and can tell you that the edits caused far more harm than amy perceived errors they thought were there. DreamGuy 21:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have to agree that YOUR version of the article is greatly superior -- from an editor's point of view -- than the one which I picked up to work with assuming that the essential facts in the article are correct. (As an editor, I assume that the material is essentially correct.)
- With all your experience in Wikipedia I'd think you are aware that the principal use of reverts is to combat vandalism, and in that case the revert should be done quickly ... not after two weeks of absence from the scene and reverting back to a version which was over two weeks old.
- If you have a keen interest in this particular article, then I'd suggest you keep a daily watch on it (either yourself or with a group of like minded souls), regardless of any consensus which had been previously reached, you've got to accept that there are countless other people who will come along in the future and make well intentioned changes and unless you are on hand to make immediate corrections or carry on immediate discussions, then reversions such as you've done after a two week absence can be view as heavy handed and unwaranted. --JAXHERE | Talk 15:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, see, if you limit massive editing to only those people who have all the time in the world to futz around on Wikipedia nonstop everyday then you are limiting it to only those people who don't have real jobs or lives, and those are the last people you want editing an encyclopedia. Heavy-handed acts are completely warranted when it IMPROVES the encyclopedia, as those edits clearly did. If you aren't here to IMPROVE the encyclopedia and only to rationalize bad edits, then, again, you're the last sort of person who should be editing an encyclopedia. I don;t care what you think the principal uses of reverts are for, I care about what makes the encyclopedia better. And it's absolutely disgusting how alien that concept is to the vast majority of the people editing here is. DreamGuy 15:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
FYI, it is unacceptable to revert back to a version you yourself recently added with information completely irrelevant to the topic and then try to claim discussion is needed before it can be removed. As you did not discuss before adding it, reverting back to the accepted version is totally appropriate. You can't expect of others what you yourself did not even try to do so that your new changes are effectively the default.
Furthermore, the edit comment left explaining why your additions were removed were far more discussion and more relevant than your not justifying them at all and reverting back to your version.
The fact of the matter is the info you added has absolutely nothing to do with Jack the Ripper, and if we were to include a copycat section we would only include those crimes which are ACTUALLY Jack the Ripper copycats, which the ones you added definitely were not.
Please take the time to try to make constructive edits instead of becoming personally attached to edits that make no sense. DreamGuy 00:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
FYI, there was an unregistered user removing an entire content of an article. My actions were reverting back to the previous edit, not to the "original".
A serial killer with the same MO in Britain and being considered by investigators and historians as a copycat is worth a mention in this article. Jack the Ripper was given that name by journalists and the media at the time (with the original name coming from a hoax letter by a journalist), why is it inconceivable for the news and media to name a copycat now? --Jbanning22 15:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- You claimed:
- FYI, there was an unregistered user removing an entire content of an article.
- This is untrue... a user who wasn't signed in (in this case, me) removed new content you added that was wholly inappropriate.
- A serial killer with the same MO in Britain and being considered by investigators and historians as a copycat is worth a mention in this article.
- Yes, it would be... but the serial killer in question is not using the same MO at all, and historians and investigators do not consider him to be a copycat in the slightest, only some headlines in rather tabloid style newspaper reports made the connection. There is nothing to compare the two otherwise.DreamGuy 08:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Merger of Timeline of entomology
Just a couple of suggestions. Take a look at all of the various merge templates at Template:Merge. I have changed the template that you used on the Timeline of entomology article from merge to mergefrom-multiple. Also the Template:Mergeto is useful to direct discussion to a common Talk page.
More substantively, the Timeline of entomology article was split up in October 2005 because it was too long. You may think of the main Timeline of entomology article as a distribution point much like a disambiguation page. See, for example, the articles: Timeline of golf history, Timeline of computing and Timeline of Afghan history. For another problematic solution see, for example, 1804 in the United Kingdom, et seq. which replaced the Timeline of English history. I, and I am sure others, would be interested if you have suggestions about how long timelines can be handled in a more satisfactory way. Wikipedia:Timeline and Wikipedia:Timeline standards are not very helpful on this issue, but they do have some good suggestions that might be implemented in the Timeline of entomology article. --Bejnar 16:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- The major problem with that article is not that it's so long it needs to be split up into more than one article, it's that the vast, vast, vast majority of the listed information simply is subtrivial. Cut all the unnecessary crap out, and I already gave suggestions on what those would be, and then you wouldn;t have to have umpteen zillion pages. DreamGuy 20:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
the whole neo
Okay, rereading everything on BOTH articles, you are misunderstanding me. Is it a neologism? looks like it. When this is the case, put if up for deletion instead of redirecting to a word that's not completely related. I'll assume bad faith for my first edit and apologize for that one, but you should try following policy as well. Seems like the pot callign the kettle black, although I will admit the kettle is black.--Wizardman 01:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- You don't have to put things up for deletion when there's a clear article to redirect to, in this case the word that it's a typo for and that has the longer established meaning. Having to vote for deletion on every little thing is just an attempt to through red tape all over. And kids who do not understand policies (like Fair Use and Neologisms and Redirects) should not be trying to lecture other people on them. DreamGuy 01:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
{{Nndb name}}
"Abusive spam template" is not a speedy deletion criteria. If you want the template deleted, please use WP:TFD. —Mets501 (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Chronic spamming certainly was a reason for speedy deletion at one point. If this has been changed, all the poor for Wikipedia in general. DreamGuy 16:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, spamming is a criteria for speedy deletion. But deleting a template which has been around for months and is used in hundreds of articles being deleted without discussion and leaving redlinks everywhere is abuse of that criteria. —Mets501 (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- So... what you're saying is a spammer who gets their spam on hundreds of articles automatically has to have their spam stay there? So the worse a spammer is the more we respect them? Sound like you're too caught up in red tape to think things through rationally. DreamGuy 18:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, spamming is a criteria for speedy deletion. But deleting a template which has been around for months and is used in hundreds of articles being deleted without discussion and leaving redlinks everywhere is abuse of that criteria. —Mets501 (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Possibly unfree Image:Cat yawning.jpg
- Not sure who disputed it, but the license the photographer put on the image is more than clear. I suspect somebodyjust went through and added every SXC image they could find at a glance and assumed all the licenses were wrong. DreamGuy 21:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry about the late reply. We did indeed tag every image sourced from SXC because theyr default conditions do not equal public domain or even free content (did you actualy read the message I added to it?). The image in question only have "royalty free" and "Standard restrictions apply." printed on it, both of wich link to http://www.sxc.hu/info.phtml?f=help&s=8_2 the standard SXC terms, wich include among other things this clause:
This is quite clearly not a free license. Royalty free does not equal free content, we need it to be free in the sense that there are no usage restrictions, not even on commercial use.SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS!
- I have listed it on WP:PUI again (individualy this time since I did not notice you have gone and removed it from the listing before we had finished with the batch nomination). If you want us to be eable to use the image please contact the copyright holder and ask him to explicitly comfirm that the image may be used under a suitable free content license. See WP:COPYREQ for details. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- You guys are certainly to be commended for trying to do cleanup, but unfortunately it results in mistakes like these. When the photo was uploaded it was done so under the clear notice that it may be used for any purpose with no permission needed. LATER ON sxc.hu went through and modified their default license to the new terms, and automatically updated older tags with this one. This means that a whole slew of photos that were uploaded with the clear intent to allow them to be used anywhere got mislabeled. The original terms still apply, and should be the default for any such images labeled as such from sxc.hu before a certain date. Your zeal probably deleted hundreds (if not more) of photos we had a perfect right to use.
- I am fully aware of the differences between royalty free and free licenses and so forth and did all the appropriate homework when I uploaded this and other images. I knew it's easier for you to assume people don't understand the terms, but it would have been nice if you had done more homework on it and contacted people with plenty of advance warning (some of us sign on only irregularly)or through email before doing such a radical change. DreamGuy 18:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- And for the record I have tried to contact the photographer just now to be 100% sure he wants it up. I don't think he can just legally undo the license he originally uploaded it under, but it might be nice to respect his wishes if he legitimiately has second thoughts. I don't know that he does have second thoughts, though, as the license was changed out from under him and he is probably not even aware of it. Furthermore I did contact him and every other sxc.hu photographer whose work I uploaded under those licenses so they were all aware of it and none objected at that time. A few even thanked me, but I didn't hold onto any of that because I had no clue people would go through here later to try to delete them all.
- Perhaps we will hear back from the guy soon, but who knows if he's even active over there or has the same email as however many years ago this was. I wish you guys would have taken more effort to look into these issues instead of just deleting them all in a batch. DreamGuy 18:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry about the late reply. We did indeed tag every image sourced from SXC because theyr default conditions do not equal public domain or even free content (did you actualy read the message I added to it?). The image in question only have "royalty free" and "Standard restrictions apply." printed on it, both of wich link to http://www.sxc.hu/info.phtml?f=help&s=8_2 the standard SXC terms, wich include among other things this clause:
Well, great... despite notes on that page, and notes on that person's talk page to see the comments here, the image was deleted anyway without any sort of response to my comments on why it shouldn't be. Why even bother to alert people about these things if you are just going to ignore the response and do whatever you were gong to do in the first place? DreamGuy 19:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou
Thank you for letting me know about my successful RFA. Let the hard admin work begin! (Once I am fully familiar with all these tools) SGGH 20:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I was aiming for the name above I must have missclicked. Apologies! SGGH 10:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Check your mail already. Bishonen | talk 20:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
ANI thread
As a courtesy note, I am letting you know that I have brought up your name at ANI. --Elonka 23:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- The above thread has been archived. As of April 21, 2007, the current discussion is here: New ANI thread. --Elonka
- Gosh, Elonka Dunin, when are you gong to give up your harassment of me? I thought the fact that you lost your request for adminship at least partly based upon never admitting your wrongdoing in wikistalking me and baseless character assassination would have stopped you from continuing such activities, and here you are on full on active in them to this day. Guess you've given up any hope of being an admin after it was discovered that many of your votes were from sockpuppets and neatpuppets? DreamGuy 23:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The Alucard (Castlevania) Talk page...
Actually, at first, you came across as erm... arrogent? (can't think of a good word), but after reading through the whole thing I realized that you were right (for the most part, at least imho). I only read that while I was looking up info on the character. The only real 'factual' thing I disagreed with was the part of mythology being fiction vs. nonfiction. Again, having not read much into the subject, my guess would be that it's because mythology was ancient civilization's religion and attempt to explain the world around them. Is that close? If not, I was just interested in your rationale on that (I'm willing to listen). Aside from the earlier parts, you seemed reasonable. Also, could you give me a little more info on the situation with those two? Apart from the very early parts, you seemed to be the more logical of the three. I know it was a long time ago but I am interested in it, as it reminds me of a few arguements I've had before. (btw, I haven't used my user account for a while, after someone made a nasty personal attack against me, it didn't seem worth it, but I'll check back here) 66.69.86.245 02:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I missed this before... When I see that new comments have been added I check at the bottom and not the top.
- Alucard? That must have been from a long time ago... 6 months or a year or so? More? I'm confused about what prompted this message. I appreciate being told that I was right about a dispute, but I don't know if this is just supposed to be a comment to that effect or if there is some edits you want help on or something... DreamGuy 00:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Lilith
More than one scholar considers the translation as definitive and that's a good amount of them. Patai, Hurwitz, Kramer(of course), Wolkenstein, and I'm sure there's more. It should be noted that there are diffrent versions of Gilgamesh, along w/ diff translations. Most of these citations have multiple sources and aren't just one scholar. Xuchilbara 15:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then say that THEY say that the figures are the same, and cite a source to prove that. Don't claim outright that IT IS THE SAME. That's the difference between just reporting what other sources say and pushing your personal opinion into the article. DreamGuy 19:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to push my personal opinions. (Did it really sound like that?) But I've added enough sources that consider Lillake identified as Lilith by many.
Xuchilbara 19:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, you don't understand... You don't add sources to PROVE something one way or another that is under dispute in the field. You add sources merely to indicate what those sources have to say about it. "Many" OK would be fine, as "many" can (and do) believe differently. But your previous edits (and perhaps the current ones -- haven't been over to take a look, dealing with another problem) said straight out that it *should* be considered definitive. That would be you pushing your opinion on the article. And certainly the fact that the two had been identified as the same by many was already in the article, but many also reject it, which, regardless of your opinion or the opinion of the authors you favor, is a valid view and one made by serious scholars and thus should not be disparaged within the article itself. Check out the WP:NPOV policy for more on this. DreamGuy 19:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You changed the page into a redirect stating that it is only a fork file of Bloody Mary (person). While this is true, I believe the topic is still notable enough to deserve its own page. Could you please explain yourself further? Your response would be much appreciated. Thank you. PeaceNT 16:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- It might deserve it's own page at some point, but you can't just have two articles on the same topic going at once with different information and different sources. Go to the main page and argue there to split it off if you want. DreamGuy 19:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- And I left an additional comment on that person's talk page, which I summarize here with: And I would support eventually making it be a separate article, but there's a right way and wrong way to do it. DreamGuy 00:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Point taken. I'll try to sort out the sources and work on the article later. Thank you PeaceNT 05:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
DID
The edits you are making to this page are resurrecting a controversy that has been settled. There are a number of pages dedicated to the controversy of DID, and, it was decided by the editors who have been most active in contributing to this page, that the diagnosis position and the controversy position would be kept separate. Your contributions are welcomed and appreciated, but these in particular are regressive. Cheers! Empacher 17:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- PS -- In reading your talk page, and taking note of the disclaimer on your user page, I can see your POV editing, reversion, etc. are on-going issues for you. Kindly be considerate of the above statement and play nice. Empacher 17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Um, no... The controversy is not "settled," and your edits violate WP:NPOV policy.
- Your claim about the pages being kept separate has nothing to do with my edits. Yes, the pages between DID and DID in fiction are kept separate, but you can't just remove a link on the main page to the DID in fiction related page so that nobody would even find the other article at all. Not to mention we know from experiene that this simply does not work, because anyone showin up to the main article not seing a link to the fiction article will just add fiction references to the main page, defeating the whole purpose of having the separate article.
- Your contributions, in fact, go completely against everything that was discussed previously on that article, and your attempt to try to portray me as an all around bad editor whose input should be ignored just to rationalize away your poor edits isn't going to fly. Your edits to that article violate policy and ignore discussion on that talk page. DreamGuy 19:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Shakespeare
My pleasure. I think Smatprt is a "true believer" who genuinely thinks there is growing academic support for the Oxfordian cause, but he tends to demand citations for statements he doesn't like, while trying to get away with stuff he does. Paul B 23:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to keep an additional eye on the page. Links to pantheon.org should be removed on sight, especially if they are being used as an actual reference rather than an external link. As for coming up with an overriding solution to the problem, the best place to discuss it will probably be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology.--Cúchullain t/c 23:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Dragon
I've had some problems with your recent edit, so I'd like you to explain your reasoning in the talk page at Talk:Dragon#External_links. If you don't give your reasoning, I'll reverse that edit after awhile. Thanks. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reasoning was already given... pretty simple.... WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:ENC. The sites you are most strongly supporting are the least valuable to our readers and being placed there for self-promotion.DreamGuy 19:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but sweeping generalizations like that can't be used to support what you're trying to do. If you want to keep spam and delete the most relevant links, then you'll need to BE SPECIFIC. Tell me why a specific link you kept doesn't meet WP:EL, in a way that is SPECIFIC and doesn't depend on your own personal views. I could claim that your user page is "self-promoting" without giving any reason and put it up for speedy deletion, but I'm sure I'd get smacked down. Thanks, and I hope to hear your further reply at Talk:Dragon#External_links. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- How much more specific than NOT ACADEMIC, UNTRUSTWORTHY and SPAM do you need? And your example makes no bloody sense, it's not related to what's being discussed at all. DreamGuy 20:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but sweeping generalizations like that can't be used to support what you're trying to do. If you want to keep spam and delete the most relevant links, then you'll need to BE SPECIFIC. Tell me why a specific link you kept doesn't meet WP:EL, in a way that is SPECIFIC and doesn't depend on your own personal views. I could claim that your user page is "self-promoting" without giving any reason and put it up for speedy deletion, but I'm sure I'd get smacked down. Thanks, and I hope to hear your further reply at Talk:Dragon#External_links. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Kali pics
You have removed two photos of Kali thus far. I think you need to discuss major changes like that before you do anything. The person who uploaded your most recent deleted photo claims to have snapped a shot of a "temple mural in Madurai". He posted that on the talk page when various photos of Kali were under attack from extremely religious editors. I suggest you take it up with User:Balajiviswanathan.(Ghostexorcist 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC))
- Removing images which do not have proper copyright notices given is not a "major change" and there is nothing to discuss except to try to determine who does own the copyright. I have already posted a message on that user's talk page. (And his image actually is very poor to begin with, with it being slanted and light flashing off of it, etc., so I don't know why you'd want it there to begin with.) DreamGuy 04:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- The picture has been on the page for several months with out any complaints about its amateur style. If it was truly taken from a mural in a temple, what do you think the copyright on it would be? (Ghostexorcist 04:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC))
Kali.jpg
It was a photograph of a temple mural. The mural is in Madurai Meenakshi Amman temple.
Balajiviswanathan 05:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Your comment on my user page
This in in reference to this comment. When I see a number of pages I watch edited by you in ways that seem to run counter to the long-term trends by the editors that actually spend a great deal of time on such articles, and I revert those parts of your changes that don't make sense to me, this is not a personal attack on you. I'm deeply disappointed by your accusations of "misleading edit summaries" as well. Furthermore, when I see several edits of such a nature, I often inspect the edit history of the user to see if a similar pattern exists and revert those edits if they're bad too. Once again, I do this to everyone, not just to you. Of the hundreds of edits you've made recently, I don't see why you're making such a big deal about the handful that I reverted. Most of those would have been reverted pretty soon by the editors that work on those articles over the long term anyway. If you've got a problem with individual edits, bring it up on the talk pages of those articles, don't assume that I have some kind of grudge against you. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, following my edit history after you didn;t get your way on a page conflict to specifically blind revert a number of badly needed changes specifically to get them compliant with Wikipedia policies is not something you can sweep aside by yet more dishonest rationalizations. And your idea of what "bad" is is clearly out of line with what the policies here actually are. DreamGuy 02:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Did you even look at my edits? No, you just now did what you have been accusing me of doing. You blind-reverted Werewolf. How can I tell that you didn't look at it? Because your reversion restored some of the la-la land mythology stuff that you rail against. Last sighting: present day? Werewolves are primates? (sarcastic) Yeah, I'm sure you approve of that stuff. (/sarcastic). If you'd looked before reverting, you would have noticed that your flawed version restored that stuff. Thus, I believe you didn't look. Please stop making accusations against me that can be easily disproven. It just makes you look bad in the end. And, what page conflict are you talking about? Are you referring to our disagreement on the talk page of Dragon? That kind of stuff happens all the time. I disagree with lots of people on talk pages, on AfD debates, and on RFCN. As to looking at your edit history, as I said before, when I see a user make what seems to me like several highly questionable edits in the same style, I inspect their edit history to see if any similar edits have been made. Then I evaluate the edits in context of the article and revert the parts that seem bad. MOST of your edits were good. Even on the ones I reverted, I sometimes found that you'd done some good and some bad, so I only reverted the bad. What's wrong with that? If you hadn't kept bringing up my edits and complaining about it, I would have forgotten all about it by now. As I told you already, I revert a LOT of people. Try not to take it personally. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I did in fact look at the edits.... overall blind reverts with half-hearted rational for restoring some small portion (although even those explanations don't conform to Wikipedia policies) and not even discussing all the many and varied other blatant and unquestionably badly needed changes. I also see you repeat over and over that I never gave explanations for my edits when I did, or claiming you have consensus when anytime it's more than just you and I discussing the issues the other editors have always agreed with me. So please dispense with all the finger pointing and actually make an effort to start following policies here. 21:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, you've gotten really upset about some of my edits. I'm not stalking you, and I'm not blind reverting your material. You, however, do seem to be hastily undoing my reversions of your material, even when I only reverted part of your material.
- So here's my suggestions for why YOUR hasty reversion messed up Téa Leoni:
- "She was ranked #79 on the FHM 100 Sexiest Women of 2000" is part of the article. You removed the citation from this, and you didn't even replace it with a {{fact}} tag. Even if you think a citation doesn't measure up, that's not the proper way to do things!
- The reference section was changed for a reason. The <!--See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags--> section really helps new editors at generating proper footnotes - something we really need, and it has no effect on the article's appearance whatsoever!
- External link: leonionline.com is not a great website, but it's a news feed with legitimate articles on the subject. I know of no way to set up a news feed on Wikipedia, so linking to a fan site that IS little more than a news feed fulfills that purpose. The articles on the site come from WP:V sources such as Variety. If you didn't think the website was good enough, you could have at least had the courtesy to harvest the legitimate sources that the website linked to, instead of just getting rid of such a valuable resource altogether.
Do you still think I'm blindly reverting your edits? Do I have to justify myself in this much detail every time I edit an article you've edited? I haven't reverted your edits to Téa Leoni again. Why? Because you're getting quite upset, and even though I want the articles in Wikipedia to be good, I'm gettin intimidated by you. I'd rather that you went back and looked at Téa Leoni yourself and saw that the concerns I have are legitimate, than do another reversion and end up in a reversion war. However, if you continue to put weird, baseless allegations about me in your edit summaries and on my talk page, I'll eventually get fed up and find an admin. Don't let it get that far. Calm down now, and look before you accuse. I sometimes revert dozens of people a day. You really shouldn't take it personally. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I already have multiple admins alerted to you actions. You followed my edit history to some seven or more random articles with often nothing in common with each other to do nothing but revert a number of badly needed edits I made, and gave edit comments that were highly deceptive. Furthermore your comments above clearly picked the one article you thought you could most justify your actions on, and even there not really because the reference section wasn't something I did, and the alleged "cite" for a claim you say needs a cite is just some nobody's vanity website and not the official site who would have the real information (not that I think the information in question is at all controversial enough to honestly require a cite, but, hell, certainly not a spam cite). DreamGuy 02:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you've gotten admins, let them look at my actions! I'm not afraid of my edit history. If you want, I can go article by article and pick apart all the little details of why I reverted parts of your edits and why YOUR subsequent actions were in fact the blind reversions that you keep accusing me of. Shall we discuss Dilbert? I don't think that admins will find your edits there very nice. You'd probably be happier if they don't look there. If I am called to offer explanations, I can offer them for all my edits. If I had reverted your last 50 edits, or something like that, then you would have a reason to get as upset as you've gotten. But I honestly don't see why you think that reverting a handful of your edits, after careful consideration of their merits, is such a big deal. Especially when I only reverted them once or twice, not even going near 3RR territory. Especially when I've repeatedly admitted that I do inspect the edit history of people who are making (what seems to me) questionable edits. I've reversed a lot of damage to Wikipedia that way. Some people go around deleting large sections from every article, because they believe all articles should be very short, and its a good habit to go look and see how many articles they may have done that to. And if my reversion of their work isn't the consensus, someone else will come along and undo my work. And where did I lose to you? What revenge was I supposedly trying to get on you? Refresh my memory. I have trouble believing that anything you've done to me has been that bad. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Admins have looked at your actions and they do think you are in error. Some have even discussed this on talk pages. And, while you losing out on the discussion over external links on the Dragon article should not be a big deal to any normal editor here, it's clear you got extremely overwrought about it, making long rambling rants and denials that anyone ever gave reasons (despite multiple editors giving very strong reasons), and it's also clear that it was immediately after that that you went on your blind revert rampage. If you have a dispute with someone one and don;t get your way, it's very poor form to try to take the dispute to a good portion of his edit history to try to "win" elsewhere. You need to start following Wikipedia policies here, namely WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUNDDreamGuy 21:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you've gotten admins, let them look at my actions! I'm not afraid of my edit history. If you want, I can go article by article and pick apart all the little details of why I reverted parts of your edits and why YOUR subsequent actions were in fact the blind reversions that you keep accusing me of. Shall we discuss Dilbert? I don't think that admins will find your edits there very nice. You'd probably be happier if they don't look there. If I am called to offer explanations, I can offer them for all my edits. If I had reverted your last 50 edits, or something like that, then you would have a reason to get as upset as you've gotten. But I honestly don't see why you think that reverting a handful of your edits, after careful consideration of their merits, is such a big deal. Especially when I only reverted them once or twice, not even going near 3RR territory. Especially when I've repeatedly admitted that I do inspect the edit history of people who are making (what seems to me) questionable edits. I've reversed a lot of damage to Wikipedia that way. Some people go around deleting large sections from every article, because they believe all articles should be very short, and its a good habit to go look and see how many articles they may have done that to. And if my reversion of their work isn't the consensus, someone else will come along and undo my work. And where did I lose to you? What revenge was I supposedly trying to get on you? Refresh my memory. I have trouble believing that anything you've done to me has been that bad. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Random anonymous comment
I personally think Elonka has a boarderline personality disorder, she has proven incapable of getting along with other editors here at Wikipedia. 12.154.210.2 03:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Disambig piping
I noticed you recently removed some piping from Mouse (disambiguation). Although I actually agree with you I just wanted to point out that it's allowable in this case because it's to coverup an anchor (#). It's listed at WP:MOSDAB#Piping as the first exception. So if you're starting a new page do it how you like, but you might want to keep moving if it's the only change you make to a page. Vicarious 23:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
A question, what is the reason behind this? I think your template is very interesting, but would appreciate you explain me how does it apply in the Mermaid article... or do you consider mermaids are non-fiction? Thanks! (your edit has not been reverted) --Neigel von Teighen 10:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Explained on the talk page, but here we go again: Mythology and legends are non-fiction, in the sense that they discuss a long history of what people actually believed, just like books of religious beliefs you don't believe in are also nonfiction. Movies and TV and etc. are not believed, not historical, and very often not at all that encyclopedic unless the article is specifically about fiction.
- I think you are working off the misconception that "anything I don't happen to believe" is what fiction is. Fiction is deliberately created false stories for an entertainment purpose. Some sailors thinking they saw mermaids, ancient cultures who believed in deities that were similar to mermaids and so forth are not fiction.DreamGuy 20:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)