User talk:DreamGuy

I've deleted a welcome message and several posts from someone upset that I removed links to her site that were inappropriately added to several pages. If you feel like reading those, they are in the history.

Please add new comments below.

DreamGuy 01:38, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

I have archived some comments. Click a link if you want to see them. [1] [2]

Gwine

Thanks for looking over Scipiocoon's contributions. I'm bothered by the casual use of words and phrases like "darkish dialect" and "smoky entertainment." I'm at work, and can't roam the Wiki as freely as I can at home. Glad someone else is watching out. Let me know if there's any way I can help. Joyous 13:36, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Ripper victim

If I remember correctly Gordon is a new member. He might not be aware of the policies regarding moves. And I could be wrong, but I think he hasn't had all that much time to respond. He was busy editing the reference sections. I'll talk to him and change the link as soon as the page is moved. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:59, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, he's new. He's been going through and changing it to Catharine other places too even after seeing my concern on his talk page at least (as he responded to it, though he may have missed the explanation). I have no problem with waiting for it to be cleared up, but then if he starts hunting down all mentions of "Catherine" on other pages (suspects, famous prostitutes, people famous in death, etc.) it's just that much more to undo later. The article was previously on an article with the correct spelling, which he has since forwarded to the new one he made, so would we have to have the original deleted and the new one moved? DreamGuy 22:04, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the title on the Ripper letters template, technically speaking the postcard wasn't a letter, but you're right. The title was misleading. I'll keep an I on the Catharine links and see how it goes. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 08:37, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

George Chapman

Hi DreamGuy;

Thanks for your message regarding Dr. Thomas Neill Cream. Thanks for fixing the page up a bit too with regards to my misspelling of his name.

I've recently added an entry for George Chapman, the Polish guy listed as a possible Ripper suspect (it needed a Disambiguation because it's also the same name as some poet or other.) I did not put a huge amount about the case because I only have one book that mentions him and I can't find too much on the web other than those that list a brief description of him under the heading of 'Ripper suspects'. I'll see what else I can find to expand it a bit. I also put in a note about how he is considered a suspect by Frederick Abberline but how he is also disregarded by some as a suspect because it is unlikely a nutcase would go from ripping women open to just poisoning girlfriends. Obviously you are more than welcome to add to the cross-referencing between Chapman and Jack T. Ripper; I figure myself quite knowledgable on most things serial-killery but not so much on historical cases, so you sound like the best person to inject such Ripper-related info into the Chapman article.

Take care. User:Robert Mercer, December 23

Ads

There is Wikipedia:External links, which also links to Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming.

When an administrator goes to the User contributors [3], or difference between revisions (clicking "compare selected versions" in the page history), there appears next to each edit which is still the most recent of each article a "rollback" button which undones the edit and creates an automated message.

I'll take a look at that edit history. Hyacinth 04:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The High Road

I'm impressed at how you're handling the harassment on your talk page. You seem to be staying calm while dealing with others who are acting childishly. Joyous 22:48, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Harpy

Good work on the Harpy article man :) FrancisTyers 00:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I have time to round up an image or two for that also. DreamGuy 02:27, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Medusa Edit

Wow that was a pretty dry edit to the Medusa page. I agree it needs a lot more and there are so many versions of the tale [as with all myths] that some facts can get skewed but, really--a little literary voice doesn't hurt. 16:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ø

Hi... encyclopedias typically don't have "literary voice," if what you mean by that is the part that was there about fountaining blood from a decapitated stump of a neck or whatever it was that used to say. It's like they say on Dragnet: "Just the facts, ma'am." DreamGuy 01:39, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Mythology is an oral tradition---not so much about hard and fast "facts". It's true there are some basic things that should be adhered to, but a little embellishment in the form of strong description doesn't interfere with that. Part of the fun is the gore. 17:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Ø

You are talking about styles of storytelling when you should be concerned with encyclopedia style. We're here to give information about topics, not to emulate their style of writing. I would also disagree strongly that "gore" is a typical part of mythology, as very often those details are entirely glossed over. DreamGuy 17:52, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Request for comments

I just placed a request for comment on Gabrielsimon's behavior. Please read it and sign it if you agree. --Pablo D. Flores 13:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Apparently another sockpuppet

I see you blocked User:Existentializer as a sockpuppet of a frequently banned user. I think we have another sock of his now...

User:Ni-ju-Ichi, based upon his edit history, looks to be exactly the same guy... note how he reverts Vampire and Vampire fiction to same states he was edit warring over earlier (with same false claims of reverting "vandalism" -- although this time in abbreviated form) anmd also the preoccupation with Islam.

I'd appreciate it if you could undo his edits on Vampire and Vampire fiction if he starts warring over them and then blocking this new one... since he keeps coming back I think more severe steps, if any exist, need to be taken, as he has proven himself unwilling to work within the rules. DreamGuy 05:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've got my eyes on User:Ni-ju-Ichi. He does look like a possible sock, but I haven't made my mind up yet. I thought I was doing okay to nail the User:Existentializer sock. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

See also: 212.202.190.53. -- Norvy (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah... that one's obvious. Thanks. He's supposed to be blocked for a year on all socks from whenever he breaks his block, so I reported him again. That link will come in handy there. DreamGuy 19:53, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Otherkin captions

Bing. How about "perception of ...yadda... difference" for the captions in the otherkin article? Vashti 00:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Captions? Oh, subheads... uhm, perception is something actually through senses and not something internal to the brain, so it wouldn't really be accurate as I understand it. "Claims of", "alleged", or some completely other way of putting the subheads there would be better. DreamGuy 00:33, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright comments Image:Mark 48 Torpedo testing.jpg

Hi. It seems I have mixed up the sources, and the images originate from the Australian Navy. In this case, the source images have not been in public domain. About my relicensing: As I understand it, Images in the PD can be used, and if modified can be given another copyright. (That is why there are CC and GFDL licenses, otherwise we could just use PD on Wikipedia). The arranging of the images (cutting, stitching together, adding lines, etc.) was not a huge job, but still took some time. And I think at least US courts have very low standards for adding artistic value, this compiled image being one example of it. Hence I added a free license so that the derivatives created by me would stay free. I do not wish to clame fame for this work, but merely to keep it free. In any case, this is no longer a point for this image, since the source images were not PD to begin with. Hope this clarified my point, please let me know if you have a different legal view. Happy editing. -- Chris 73 Talk 10:23, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry, but simply compiling images in a utilitarian way and adding lines for functional purposes in no way counts as adding artistic value for the purposes of granting a new copyright. DreamGuy 19:48, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

You have 3,000 edits now. Congratulations. Glad your RfC is closed, now let's move onward! Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

See here [[4]] to see what I am talking about.

Authentic Matthew the sequel

The POV that was in Authentic Matthew before it was NPOVed has been re-created at a new article - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Original Gospel of Matthew. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Protected your user page

I've protected your user page because of repeated vandalism from several IPs. It's listed on Wikipedia:Protected page. If you want it unprotected and I'm not around, please leave a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. FreplySpang (talk) 13:18, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Groovy. Thanks. The vast majority of all edits there were by vandals, no need for it to be unlocked any time soon. DreamGuy 21:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel Simon

Hi. We've never talked, but I've been mentoring gabrielsimon (talk · contribs · block log) and he seems to regard you as bothering him. I'd like to get your perspective on this. Could you spare me a few moments and tell me what's up with you and Gabriel? Thanks. Uncle Ed 12:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

hoping to work together

You seem to be a very intelligent and engaged person, and I hope that we can work together, specifically on the "vampire" article if not others. I would like to suggest constructively that you let go of your anger over the past, and that you stop using personal attacks in your discussion comments--- even Evmore seems willing to move on and be constructive and discuss the article, but you continue attacking in very insulting ways. That is never necessary and never constructive. I truly do believe you have been the victim of abuse in the past and I understand why you are angry about it, but now it is time to move forward. I know you don't know me, I am just an interested party, and I don't think you are to blame for all of this starting, but I do think you are partly responsible for continuing the hostility, and I hope you can find it in your heart and your intellect to take a deep breath and start fresh. BarkingDoc

Well, it seems like an unfortunate situation. You have been dealing with it much longer than I have. So all I can do is just hope that there is has been a shift and that everyone has learned from past conflicts. I still remain open to the possibility that we can work out a consensus, even under less than ideal circumstances. We'll see. Thank you for your comments. BarkingDoc

Religion and schizotypy VfD interference

Please do not redirect the article while it is currently up for VfD... Doing so removes the VfD tag. If you look at the vote page you should note that redirecting is the smallest minority position on the page. Please do not try to overrule the votes of other editors by taking these actions befoe the vote is closed. DreamGuy 02:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

It is not necessary to have a vote to redirect a page and I don't accept VfD's authority. Especially not when you yourself are removing discussion (i.e. consensus building) from the "vote" page. "Edit this page now" allows me to remove the VfD tag. You are free to put it back. — David Remahl 02:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You "don't accept VfD's authority" ???!?! Hello, it's a fundamentally policy here. DreamGuy 02:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Not really. Policy on Wikipedia is goverened by consensus. There is nothing like consensus on VfD at this point. — David Remahl 02:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

For a sample of the divergence of attitudes, see Wikipedia:Deletion reform. — David Remahl 03:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the discussion! That was very nice of you. You'll be glad to know that I don't intend to go past one revert :-). — David Remahl 03:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Religion and schizotypy VfD

Hi... a while back you reverted (and protected) the fork file Missing Sun myth when it was going through VfD and people kept removing the header and redirecting it before the vote was completed. Today the same situation is going on with Religion and schizotypy, with some editors who voted to merge/redirect going ahead and doing so (thus removing the tag) before VfD is closed, even though the votes are clearly showing a wide consensus to delete it completely. A number of admins had already voted on it so I tried to think of someone who wasn;t involved to step in and take care of it, and I remembered you. I would be appreciative if you could come in and do the same thing you did previously under the similar circumsances. DreamGuy 03:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

It appears to me that Ed Poor is backing a speedy merge. I'm not going to throw myself into that buzzsaw. I suggest that you raise this directly with him, or else make your views known on the request for arbitration that has been raised regarding this editor. Kelly Martin 04:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy: I wonder if you can tell me something...Can you give me one single example of a hypothetical future situation where it would matter _at_all_ whether the outcome of the vote is redirect or delete? If it goes to delete, as it probably will, I will recreate the page as a redirect immediately. It is a reasonably useful redirect, so it would never be deleted at RFD. It is quite different from the current contents, that was up on VfD, so this VfD decision will not affect the recreated version. VfD does not deal with redirects (that's what RFD is for). Thus, it will remain as a redirect until someone replaces its contents. The only difference between the two outcomes is what is in the history. Now, I can understand that there are reasons to remove history completely, but I cannot see one in this case. — David Remahl 04:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

And if you recreate the page after a delete, making iut a redirect or whatever, I will mark it as a speedy delete under the recreation of a previously deleted article rule and it will get deleted again. You have basically admitted to a bad faith desire to ignore consensus on this issue. You need to change that attitude and accept what people as a group decide instead of forcing your opinion down other people's throats. DreamGuy 04:56, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Nope, the CSD guidelines for an article that has previously been deleted does not cover this case. If an article is deleted at one point in time and is later recreated by a different editor with different contents, then it must be VFD'd again. I believe there is _much_ stronger consensus in favor of that, than for VfD in general. And you did not answer my question. — David Remahl 05:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

No, actually, I did answer your question, but apparently you do not (or are unwilling to) understand. The VfD also clearly covers the possibility of a redirect and the votes are clearly in favor of a full delete and not a redirect. If you think you can prevail against consensus by playing games you have another thing coming. DreamGuy 05:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Supporting material: Template:Deleteagain has this wording: "because it is reposted content that was removed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy". Note "content". Also look at the talk page to see that this was exactly what was intended. The wording in the "official" policy is #4: "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of an article that was deleted according to the deletion policy." — David Remahl 05:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, we'll see. And no, you still did not answer my question. If you don't accept my argument about recreation, I'll pose it in a different way: please identify one situation when the "redirect present" scenario is better than "redirect missing". — David Remahl 05:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The question is irrelevant and your inability to accept consensus is tiring. DreamGuy 05:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then. How about this: "Please tell me why you decided to vote delete instead of redirect." This question is definitely relevant and I assure you that I ask it in good faith. If you can explain to me the reasoning behind voting delete, I'm more likely to accept it. I'm not trying to play the system here, whatever you think. — David Remahl 05:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Please? — David Remahl 06:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm on Wikipedia a lot, but nonstop, so no need to get worried about lack of reply for a half hour. As far as why I voted delete, I do believe that was explained on the actual VFD page already. DreamGuy 07:03, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

You are right and I'm sorry I missed it. That is a good explanation and I wish we'd see more of it. There are several reasons why someone would go looking for it. There are several incoming links to it, from VfD if nothing else. Web spiders may have indexed it. It is stupid to rob Wikipedia of that incoming traffic. Lastly, a non-admin might be interested in what was so terribly POV with the previous content. Not removing the history may save an undeletion request. Again, I apologize for not reading up on the deletion page better. (Also sorry for being impatient :-), I want to go to bed.). — David Remahl 07:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

pointl;essness of profanity removals

well, yeah, it is pretty poointless to remove profanity, but at least if you see " profanity removed" ionstead of actual profanity, it doenst offend the eye, or upset you as much as beingcalled profane names... i hope... i also hope what i replacecd itwith wasnt offensive. (by the by, thanks for some of thw w rods on my talk page... FIANLY figured out somehing...) this is the new meGavin the Chosen 13:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Groovy. DreamGuy 14:07, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Myth & Mythology

I'm puzzled about the reasoning for your edits to Mythology, namely that mythology is not used more commonly to denote a collection of myths than their study. At Talk:Mythology, Paul August & I listed 6 different examples of Mythology used to indicate a collection; I could provide more, if needed. However, I didn't see you providing examples of this word being used in the sense you champion. Can you provide enough examples -- say 5 or 6 -- of "mythology" used in the sense of the "study of myths" to confirm that this usage is as common? -- llywrch 01:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

And I disputed several of your so-called examples as you reading what you wanted to read out of them. Your claim to have not seen me provide evidence is faulty, as I posted replies there covering this. And note that my change to the article does not say that it is not more common, I say that it is also used, which is undebatably true. Why even fight over how common it is? Seems like you are purposefully trying to advance a POV statement and totally unwilling to accept a good faith neutral statement. DreamGuy 02:17, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Unless I am missing some subtle point in your argument, your response to what Paul & I wrote was, in essence, "No, it isn't". If you want me to take your denial seriously, please elaborate. Also, you seem to have misunderstood what I said above: can you provide evidence to show that it is wrong to say that my definition of "mythology" is not more common? Or even some indication that your definition of this word is used by anyone besides you? If you cannot offer that kind of proof, then it would appear that it is you who is unwilling to accept a good faith neutral statement. -- llywrch 18:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

And what you and Paul wrote consists solely of you saying "Yes it is" and making wrong-headed assumptions about the use of certain words. You claimed that a boook title of "Norse Mythology" proved it was about stories and not study when study is just as logic a use for that title. As far as "can you provide evidence to show that it is wrong to say that my definition of "mythology" is not more common" -- you're so wrapped up in qualifications and negatives and so forth there you are actually arguing the opposite of what you mean. The point here is there is no evidence that your supposed use of the term is "more common". I compromised and agreed to have the statement that it is sometimes used your way in there, but if you claim it is more common, then you need to provide real evidence (instead of faulty assumptions) to try to prove it. You can't just claim your side is right and expect it to be that way unless I prove it wrong, as that is highly POV. You're trying to set me up to prove a negative (or, going by your quote, a double negative), and that's never good faith. The way it is right now is NPOV, factual and fair -- and is already a substantial compromise on my part. You seem unwilling to look at my responses on the talk page, check sources, or app[y any sort of compromise at all, but cling stubbornly to the concept of "most common" without citations or proof. I'd further be willing if you are dead set on the idea of messing with it to let you say something like "common in popular usage" (as to differentiate it from academic use), but then there are lots of words whose common popular usage is actually incorrect and muddled, and I think the whole purpose of an encyclopedia is to get it right. DreamGuy 23:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Let me respond to your statements as clearly as I am possible to make myself:

1. Paul & I supplied 5 different examples of our usage of the word "mythology". Can you provide any examples of your usage? This is the second time I have asked you for this proof. How many times need I ask you for evidence?
2. You claim that we misunderstand our examples, but offer no counter-examples clearly showing that anyone has embraced your usage. It is not we who are twisting the evidence, but you.
3. If you offer proof that anyone besides you uses the word "mythology" in your own unique way -- even one example -- then you would offer proof of your position. If you can provide four or five examples, then it becomes plausible that your usage is as common as ours. Doing so does not prove a negative; but by evading my request for evidence, I can't help wonder if you have any proof for your convictions other than your handwaving.
3. This distinction between "correct" & "common" is specious. Do you have any proof that your definition has been shown to be the correct one? Is this the opinion of any single identifable authority -- & if so what is her/his name? Or are you the only one in existence who possesses this wisdom?
4. The purpose of Wikipedia is clearly not to prescribe correct usage or interpretations, but to document what significant groups of people assert are correct usage or interpretations. (Kindly reread NPOV.) Unless you can document that your usage of "mythology" is said to be correct by an acknowledged authority, then it becomes at best just another usage, no more correct than any other documented usage. But since it appears you are the only person who knows of this "correct" usage, until you supply proof it is not even a documented usage, just an alleged one.
5. I have used the word "proof" numerous times so far in my response. Do you see a pattern? Can you offer me any proof for what you are saying? Or is that not clear enough?
6. Do you get off nitpicking other people's arguments -- for example claiming people make "double-negatives" -- or do you look for any small flaw in other people's arguments when you know you are wrong? -- llywrch 21:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Here I didn't even see this until now... but suffice it to say that all your excess verbaige is wasted. "My" definition is in Webster's, so your claims that nobody uses it is wrong. It also happens to be the preferred definition for those in the field, as already shown. It appears that you hope to fillibuster me here with circular reasoning that has already been proven completely flawed. DreamGuy 09:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppet

OK, I read your talk page note. Yes, I dived into the situation, and yes, perhaps I could have examined it even more closely. I acted as I saw fit at the time to resolve a pressing dispute which had landed at my feet, so to speak.

Regarding the issue of sockpuppetry, I suggest that you avoid mindlessly accusing anyone of it - yes, there are certainly reasons to be suspicious, but not all new users are sockpuppets. I prefer to think of it being a coincidence until I see compelling evidence otherwise.

If you continue to feel that a user is a sockpuppet, then get a developer-level user to run a "sockcheck" on that user's IP address; David Gerard or Brion might be the best places to start looking.

I think it's fair to say that this dispute will continue to press on, although it is little more than a content dispute over a protected page, insofar as I can see - correct me if my perception is wrong. I certainly bear no personal grudge against you, and I value fellow editors, admins and bureaucrats equally in terms of content.

Hope this settles some of your concerns. Rob Church 02:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you stop characterizing my claims as mindless accusations, as there is very strong evidence. Remember that so far, on every name that I have accused of being a sockpuppet that has been completely followed through and checked, I have been correct 5 out of 5 times that the individuals involved were, in fact, sockpuppets. Please see the User:Gabrielsimon case as well as User:Existentializer and his immediate followup sockpuppet (the spelling of whose name I forget). The User:Pukachu and USer:Devilbat cases have many of the exact same signs, and other admins have agreed with me that their actions are suspicious. Perhaps you would like to call them all "mindless" as well? DreamGuy 02:17, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

And speaking of those "mindless accusations" -- David checked User:Pukachu and User:Devilbat and they were, in fact, sockpuppets of User:Existentializer. See [User talk:David Gerard#Sock Puppet Request.] DreamGuy 00:59, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hi guy.

Hey, we have some unfished business, but I finally baited the admins to take the bait and block my User:Amorrow, so I am using this "sockpuppet account" instead. I finally read your user page and I now see that we are on the same side. We can let it go at that for now, but you might want to read my new user page. Andysocky 05:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Nuh? What side...? You were making bizarre edits to some article and I undid the recent ones that I could spot right away. Just because I don't like how some admins handle things doesn't mean I'm on the side of anyone with any conflict with any admin. DreamGuy 06:27, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel simon

I'll talk to him; thanks for stopping by. Uncle Ed 00:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm off

I know that me and you have had our differences in the past, but I wanted to give you a farewell, and to let you know that I plan to discontinue editing for this site. D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Although you did not respond to this message,, I just want to apologize again for the harsh words from April. I am glad that we were able to come to a consensus before I left. I wish you success in the future. D. J. Bracey (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

British Lions Tour 1997

May I ask you what right you think you have to remove my uploaded image when I am on record as confirming that it is copyright free?PaddyBriggs 11:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed it because it was listed on the possible copyright violation page. Per policy, any image listed there has to be removed from all articles until the dispute is resolved, and then may only be returned if the dispute is in your favor. Your vlaim that it is "copyright free" appears to be completely in error, however, as people have shown on your talk page and elsewhere. DreamGuy 00:55, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Come on my friend, a little humor now and then never killed anyone

Dear Dreamguy,

Sorry if you didn't like my poor attempt at a joke in the vFD discussion. I like your clear and incise comments on what you have done thus far with Parodi Jr's two articles, and with his photo at the Arun Gandhi article, and I have no problems at all with your decision to disagree with my earlier request for more leniency with him. I would guess that you will probably disagree with this viewpoint, but I will share it with you anyways....

I think that Parodi Jr. will one day return to Wiki and become a good Wiki editor. I believe that your insistence on following Wiki vanity guidelines will have on some level impressed him, causing him on some level to recognize the fact that Wiki is indeed a quality encyclopedia site, even though on a conscious level he may not fully recognize this yet for a few more years.

I know I grow a little with each person I meet on Wiki, and I am impressed with your own insistence on following the guidelines as best as we are able. I don't know if you saw it, but I completely rewrote the Vanity guidelines as a result of what I will call the recent 'Parodi-Vanity Episode'. If you are interested, please check this out at WP:VANITY. Perhaps you too might have something to add to my rewrite over there. If so, it would be much appreciated.

Take care my friend,

-Scott P. 14:14, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ancestry

I was quite careful with my phrasing in my edits to the Otherkin article - I do acknowledge your efforts to have this be as NPOV as possible. However, you will note that, by using the active mode rather than passive ("they trace their ancestries" rather than "their ancestries can be traced"), the validity of these genealogies is neither supported nor refuted. "They trace", rather than "they CAN trace", you see? DS 17:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The word "trace" isn;t at all the same as "claim" -- "trace" implies that they can follow the trail of ancestors step by step to an actual nonhuman one. Trace is active and implies reality. If it's not real then trace wouldn't work, so by saying trace you are saying it is real. That's highly POV. DreamGuy 02:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Gavin/Gabriel

DreamGuy, I'm not sure the reverting at Vampire was a 3RR, as the fourth revert seemed to retain a lot of your previous edit. Rather than look into that further (he's already blocked anyway), I'd rather try to avoid this happening again. Could you draw me up a list of the articles on which he seems to revert you the most, or on which he causes the most trouble? It might be a better idea to ask him to stop editing those pages completely until the arbcom deals with him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. DreamGuy 09:24, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

3,000 + edits

I put you on this [5]. I came back, by the way. D. J. Bracey (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone ever nominated you to become an adm. by the way?D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Vampire

Hats off to you... =)--Kim Nevelsteen 13:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Cat photo

Please explain your comment "replace photo that was at the top back to top and removing vanity photo of the cat belonging to the editor who had changed it" Clearly a vanity photo my foot. It's not even my cat. The resolution and quality of the photo (not to mention that it was taken by a wikipedian not an outsider) is far superior. I think you'd better look in the mirror and consider your own words to yourself.

Judging by what is written on your userpage under "Update May 3, 2005", you obviously consider yourself as above reproach and a standard-setter. Well I'd advise you to remember that Wikipedia is made up of the contributions of many. You have no justification in completely removing the photo. Have a look at my userpage, see the two photographic barnstars - I think I can fairly say that I have more that a little knowledge in photography. --Fir0002 09:09, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Fine, if the cat isn't your cat then it's not a pet owner vanity decision, but the photographer's vanity decision in placing it there. You claim that "the resolution and quality of the photo (not to mention that it was taken by a wikipedian not an outsider) is far superior" -- this is obviously vanity, because the clarity is not superior, and why on earth should we feature Wikipedian photos in preference to outsider photos? I'd rather we go with professional photographers' work when we can.

The image at the top of Cat was specifically chosen because previous talk page discussion wanted an image showing a cat's side, showing most of the body. Your new photo was just a silly grip and grin equivalent, useless for demonstrating the topic at hand. Please take a step back from your ego and deal with the fact that working with other editors means that you don;t always get your way. Your response was very uncivil and did not at all do anything to show that you didn't make the change for vanity, and, in fact, your claims provide further proof of your vanity. DreamGuy 09:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)