User talk:DreamGuy

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 This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current.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

If you have a demonstrated history of personal harassment on these pages, your posts are not welcome here. If you do post, your comments will be removed without being read. If there's any chance that you might not know that your behavior is considered harassment, I will tell you, and from that point on you will not be allowed to post here. To anyone who doesn't know what I am referring to here, this warning does not apply to you, so by all means leave a message.

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

Lore Sjöberg

Thank you for putting up that quote and a link to the Wired article on your user page. It's been a while since I've laughed so much. As they say, it's funny because it's true :) §FreeRangeFrog 21:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, once I saw that one I knew I had to include it.DreamGuy (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I thought you should know that Arcayne's complaining about you in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard

From what I'm seeing here, he didn't bother to inform you.

It's really sad. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for this guy. Doesn't he have anything else in his life? Erikeltic (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have ANI watchlisted, and whenever I see him posting there I check to see if he's complaining about me or not, so I already replied.

He's frankly obsessed with me and constantly seeks out ways to get into conflict with me, but thankfully he usually loses. At this point he's been stumbling so badly and doing the same to so many other people that I suspect he's probably heading for some serious consequences soon. DreamGuy (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

God I hope so. It's just unfair that he gets to abuse the system [and other editors] the way that he does. Erikeltic (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism to my user page

Hi. I just wanted to stop by and say thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. I think that they didn't appreciate my removal of their spam from the Untouchable (Girls Aloud song) page. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 18:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Urban Legends

Your edit, summ'd "this list is full of content that has very list purpose for being here, if any -- clearing out ones already linked to in article, that aren't ULs or related" -- has needed doing for a loooong time. thanks! DavidOaks (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. DreamGuy (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Serial deproder

Hi there. I'd just like to add my personal support to your efforts against the disruptive edits by the likes of Varbas. Keep up the good work. Don't let thugs stop you. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. From the sea of red links showing up on my watchlist currently it looks like a whole lot of articles deprodded by Varbas/User:Azviz for no good reason are finally getting deleted, and I expect more soon. With any luck the sockpuppet investigation will finally get him banned for good... until he pops up using yet another new account again. DreamGuy (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI - in case you missed it, Varbas has indeed been blocked as a sockpuppet. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you for letting me know. Didn't see a notice pop up anywhere. DreamGuy (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

courtesy notification

Your Canadian friends have opened a thread about you on AN/I. Looks like you might have hit a nail on the head..
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Saw that he reverted the IP talk page. The ANI post certainly doesn't help his case any. DreamGuy (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked for two weeks as a sock of you-know-who. I think everyone is catching on by about the fourth time that this has happened. :) MuZemike 00:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for filing that report and letting me know the results. DreamGuy (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Columbus'(s) egg

Learning something new every day... Thanks, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ambigram

Hi DreamGuy, I have recently made some changes to an article, Ambigram, you have previously edited and have shown some interest in. Another similarly interested editor has suggested my changes are outside expressed consensus and has an interest in discussing my edits upon his return from vacation. As you were actively involved in previous discussions I would humbly request your participation or that you watch developments on this page. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have seen his ownership issues along with his clear misunderstanding on consensus and his lack of understanding of wikipedea policies. I have seen your attempts to point out the obvious to him and his dismisal of such attempts. Aggressive owners do not stop me. My changes to EL are the only changes I made and I see as questionable. DMOZ seemed to me to be close to a social site, that opinion may be outside consensus and is so reverted. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

John Borowski

Fron Wikipedia entry on John Borowski:

"John Borowski is an American filmmaker whose recent films have focused on serial killers H.H. Holmes and Albert Fish."

I recently watched a movie "Portraits in evil" by this John Borowski, and the serial killers he discusses in the movies are discussed with some identical phrases and ideas as their respective Wikipedia entries. Reading on DreamGuy's user page, I notice his interests and that he is a publisher, and just have to ask... Any relationship, sir? Oh, and upon further inspection, the John Borowski page was edited one time by DreamGuy, and it was to edit a proposition to delete the John Borowski page due to self promotion. I'm intrigued...Debollweevil (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If you'd paid attention to the edits, I was trying to delete the article because some other editor was using it for self promotion, and the edits that actually added wording similar to the movie were obviously added by someone other than myself. If you are trying to accuse me of self-promotion because I caught someone else promoting themselves, that's absurd. It's almost as bad as being accused of being a vandalism when I delete someone else's vandalism. DreamGuy (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just observant. No accusation... maybe a slight insinuation but no offense intended. I was actually hoping that there was a connection between you two! Debollweevil (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no connection. I haven't seen "Portraits in Evil" but if the info is copied straight from Wikipedia that should tell you how little you should trust him as a source. DreamGuy (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I'm not sure exactly what is going on. The H. H. Holmes documentary was released in 2004, but the compilation with the other serial killers was released earlier this year. As I said earlier, I'm just observant and trying to piece things together. Sorry if I gave the impression of trying to harass you. Debollweevil (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Film noir

An editor has made token improvements to this article and removed the {{essay}} tag- can you please review? The article still does things like include its own definition of what a film noir is without any citation, the "Approaches to defining noir" section is a vary glaring instance of an essay-like tone. I was going to ask Sarek of Vulcan, who also understood the essay tag, but he seems to be on break, so feel free to ignore this if you're busy. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There were next to no changes to the text (though added sources are good), so I put the tag back. DreamGuy (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppet case

Hello DG, I've started an SPI here regarding a user that you may be more familiar with than I and wanted to let you know in case you have any comments. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for help on skeptic articles

Hey remember that editor who marked a wad of skeptic articles for WP:N problems? You remarked that he was engaging in WP:POINT. Well he marked nine of them for deletion today. Several of us think this is very premature. Could you take a look? Thanks much! --Krelnik (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Old copyvio"

I placed a response on my discussion page. Verne Equinox (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I cant think of a name 994

I see those account have already been blocked. This can be dealt with at ANI now. Hut 8.5 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Just dropping in to tell you that I'm fairly new here ,I think the inclusion of links to unverified videos can make the videos seem encyclopedic (to users redirected from WP). Why don't you apply for a sysop you seem qualified enough (with 27,000 edits)?:D have a great day --Notedgrant (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Pie.jpeg

Notedgrant (talk) has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

FYI

I quoted you in a comment I made at a thread at RSN. Cirt (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Blackout Ripper, again

Hey. That guy who keeps changing serial to spree is back. Mind keeping an eye on the page? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Lemme ask you something. Based on the edits, do you think there's a WP:SOCK case to be made against Bigone2 (talk · contribs), Albsol88t (talk · contribs) and Howto8008 (talk · contribs)? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Pretty obviously the same guy. I think it's a WP:DUCK situation that can probably bypass normal sockpuppet identification methods. I'm alerting the admin who indef blocked the original account. DreamGuy (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Kay, this is getting more and more ridiculous. I opened a thread on WP:ANI. I don't think this edit helps them all that much, either. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Le Zombie

This is one of the seminal fanzines of its time, one which earned its editor a big chunk of his fame as a Hugo-winning fan writer. Descriptions of it tend to use words like "legendary". I've added just one such reference, from a major mundane newspaper in another country, where Le Zombie is also known to the cognoscenti. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Get the required number of reliable sources to demonstrate notability and you'll be fine. If you can't then I guess it isn't notable for the non-cognoscenti on Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Repressed memory

Hi DG,

I've undone your revert to repressed memory. I think the page is certainly problematic, but I don't think JAR is POV-pushing and I certainly don't think the page is adequate. I'd rather work towards a better version that's reflecting the majority and minority opinion than play whack-the-revert-button with various editors. I've continued to read on the topic and repressed memories are certainly debateable, but we need to reflect the debate even if it means noting the spurious pseudoscience that most of the recovered-memory crowd cites. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Jack-A-Roe may not be intentionally pushing a POV (though he certainly may be -- he has a long history of questionable edits), but the edits in question certainly have that end result. He said something was a RS, we both say it's not, without other input the end result should be that the content should be removed. And we do not need to reflect spurious pseudoscience, per our WP:FRINGE standards. DreamGuy (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you weigh in on the talk page, I've started a section. I've always found JAR to be reasonable even if I disagree, and since I don't see this as an issue of reliability (my points are about undue weight) there's a good chance of convincing him or at least starting a discussion. Also, your revert undid my edits to the research section, so I replaced them. Just an FYI, I figured you weren't trying to undo that as well. My replacement didn't change any of the edits where you undid my undo of JAR's undo of my doing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

RSN thread

Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#60_Minutes_and_the_Assassination_of_Werner_Erhard? Cirt (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what needs another look there. Are you asking me to reassess my opinion based upon later comments, or were you hoping for clarification of some of my general statements as they apply to the specific examples? DreamGuy (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think it's okay as there has been further input and extended comments from others that helps clarify things. Thanks though. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry at Smiley face murder theory

Please explain your vague sockpuppet accusations (on the Talk:Smiley face murder theory page) or remove them. Being the only other editor currently engaged there I can only assume you are suggesting I am sockpuppetting. Please back that up with facts or remove the allegation. Padillah (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If you say you are the only other editor currently engaged there then it seems you agree that the other accounts posting to the page other than myself and you are the same person... which is pretty blatant and my entire point. It appears you got confused because the person posting there is so obviously the same individual that you didn't even notice that it was using two different accounts to make the posts there. That's a pretty clear indication of a WP:DUCK sock. DreamGuy (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I get it. And you may have a point, it had not even occurred to me until I looked real hard. Please accept my retraction, the accusation was a bit vague and I wasn't sure who was included in it. Padillah (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. I can see where you could get confused, and I didn't spell it out there. DreamGuy (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Derf

Due to some weird TW glitch, it seems that the AfD discussion page for this one was not created. You might want to take another look. Tim Song (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from My Friend Dahmer

Hello DreamGuy, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to My Friend Dahmer has been removed. It was removed by Orangemike with the following edit summary '(decline prod; perhaps suggest that it be merged into Derf instead?)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Orangemike before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Smiley face murder theory

I have posted some elaborations of the statements I made in the RFC, but it doesn't seem to help much. It appears that there is a major case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on on that talk page. Meanwhile I've had my hands full trying to remove unsourced statements and original research of all kinds from other articles. *** Crotalus *** 18:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Psycho

Hello. Regarding the plot tag, could you please be more respectful of others' work. Some editors, including myself, recently spent a considerable amount of time on that article to maintain its GA status. This involved cutting the plot down from in excess of 1200 words to what it is now. The current guidelines (not 'policy') on writing film articles suggest 400-700 words. Do you really think the 94 words over this guidelines justifies the tag? Do you think it's worth compromising the integrity of the article for the reader? If you are so concerned, perhaps you might like to join our collaboration to trim further? Surely you can understand how annoying it is for someone to 'tag and run' over such a minimal excess, after several of us have spent many hours of work on the article. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think adding a tag is disrespectful I'm not sure how you can survive on a project where the general public is encouraged to not only add tags but change and/or delete anything they see that doesn't look right. "Compromising the integrity of the article"? Are you serious? I've got the page watchlisted, I am not just tagging and running. DreamGuy (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Tags are to be used with common sense. It is generally considered discourteous to established to use tags, boilerplate templates, etc, as opposed to discourse. Did you read the talk page first to see if the issue was already under discussion? Yes, I am serious: tags do compromise the integrity for the article for the reader (for who's benefit we are writing). How is the reader supposed to feel about the quality and integrity of Wikipedia when an otherwise fine article is decorated with such a banner? Don't misunderstand me -- I'm certainly not against tagging, but judgment should be used. Readers should be warned, for instance, about referencing issues, or that the Wikipedia does not consider the writing style of a particular article to its standards. The reader does not need to be notified that a plot is 12% over the 400-700 currently advised on Film MOS. Editors do, and, on this occasion, the most appropriate and civil course of action would have been to politely note on the talk page that you disagreed with the GA reassessor's view that that it was acceptable. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Smiley face murder theory talk page

I must apologize for the name calling over your input on the smile face murder theory.--Botdance (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, I have blocked this user indefinitely as his entire reason for editing Wikipedia seemed to be to harass you. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I suspect that account was probably a sock of some other user, but as long as the main account isn't doing similar behavior they would now know they can't get away with it that way. DreamGuy (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I just came here to ask if you had any idea whose obvious stinky sock that was, but I will leave it up to you if you feel like filing a WP:SPI or not. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Zodiac killer

Hi, I haven't been editing or looking at main space for awhile. I just looked at this article and the mess it's in. Take a peek http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Zodiac_Killer&diff=316208200&oldid=316205193 It now has dead links, tags through out, boy I'm shocked at how fast this occurred. I'm still having problems with RL so I wanted to bring this to the attention of someone I knew who actively edited the article and saw your name. I will try to help when I can but I will not be too useful until I get healthier. Thanks, if not interested I totally understand. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know much about that case, I'm afraid. Seems to be one of the few big ones I never read anything on. The dead link labeled in that edit is fine, though, as it's a ref to a newspaper article, and the news article still existed and can be used as a source even if the online version was taken down or moved. DreamGuy (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'll see how much I can do myself. I can ask others in the wiki serial group to help too if needed. Thanks again, hope all is well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles Deleted, Regarded as Spam

Hi DreamGuy, I noticed articles that I edited were deleted because they were regarded as spam. How would I go about getting them back on? Do I have to delete the external links? That would not be a problem. I didn't realize it when first creating them. I am not affilated with the author or Amazon. I am a fan of the whole genre for the book and wanted to list it for others who would be interested. Thanks for the help and info. Jmurphy86

Hi DreamGuy, I read over the articles regarding spam and conflict of interests. I will go ahead and reinsert the edits excluding any external links or mentions of sites where the product is available. Please let me know if there is anything further I should do or know. Again, sorry, next time I will research further on Wiki's policies. Thanks. Jmurphy86 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmurphy86 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's still advertising for a book published through a vanity press, so still spam. DreamGuy (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com

On my talk page, you wrote:

Just FYI, Examiner.com is not a reliable source, so should not be added as a reference to articles. It was discussed over on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard quite extensively in the past. DreamGuy (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I confess I am not shocked. This is the 2nd time I have seen articles there that seemed to be reworked (mildly) WP articles...and thus my note at the edit. Thanks.- Sinneed 21:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary

Without commenting on the specifics of this particular case, if you ever find yourself writing edit summaries or comments in caps, it is time to take a break and regain your equilibrium. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

ps, saw this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:DreamGuy. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday up to his old tricks again, I see. DreamGuy (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

• New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
• Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
• News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Keto

Hey, I'd like to discuss the Keto/Ketos issue. Every ancient source refers to these entities as separate beings, right down to the fact that the gendering in the names is different (Keto vs. Ketos). You can find every single ancient source on these two disparate characters at http://www.theoi.com/Pontios/Keto.html and http://www.theoi.com/Ther/KetosAithiopios.html. I'd like to see this issue resolved, because the goddess really ought to have her own article. Right now it's implying that the goddess is the same entity as the sea monster slain by Perseus, which is unsupported by the ancient texts. Expert opinion cited on those websites (from the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, for example) also supports the idea that these are two different beings.

I welcome your thoughts. Proserpine (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The main thing we would need to state that these were separate beings is some reliable source saying so. It's not uncommon for the same figure to be rendered with slightly different names, or even completely different titles (in fact the pages you link to detail several for each), but the difference in names doesn't necessarily make them separate mythological figures. In this case you keep stressing that Keto was a goddess, but that's really kind of misleading as she doesn't have regular goddess-like features or worship and was a sea monster herself, and mother of many other monsters, none of which were goddesses. Declaring this to be two separate entities appears to me to fall under original research. If you find reliable sources making this claim, that we can cite them as holding that opinion, but you cannot use Wikipedia to say your own opinion as if it were a fact. DreamGuy (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to find any kind of source indicating that they are the -same- being, so I think -that- is the original research here. Keto isn't anywhere described as a sea monster except in that her name is derived from the word for sea monster. She's depicted, meanwhile, in ancient art (such as the Gigantomachy frieze at the Pergamon Altar of Zeus) as a humanoid goddess like any other. Consensus seems to be on my side over at Cetus (mythology), so I'll let this go for now.Proserpine (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 1 week following continued disruptive editing against consensus. You're welcome to appeal this block using {{unblock}} and following the instructions at WP:APPEAL. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DreamGuy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Give me a break. The block length is way excessive even if the accusations were true, but they are not. Anyone who looks at the talk page would see there is no consensus (an equal number of people want to shorten the plot and want it to stay the same, and putting a tag there saying it needs to be looked at is not some "disruptive" change), and certainly User:Shoemaker's Holiday's reasons for removing the tag -- the claim that "WP:NOTPLOT only applies to articles where the plot is the only element there" -- are not at all in line with the actual policy (he wanted to try to change the policy so that it read that, but clear consensus rejected that argument). Blocks should not be applied willy-nilly, and especially not in cases where they are clearly being requested by an individual trying to wikilawyer his way into prevailing in a conflict. If the idea is that disagreements over editing in general without any violation of 3RR is enough reason to block, then every editor who ever disagreed could be blocked at will -- and certainly if this bizarre idea were applied fairly to all editors then Shoemaker's Holiday would also have been blocked for an equal amount of time. This block is simply without any foundation whatsoever.

Decline reason:

This request fails to address the reason for your block. You were not blocked for "disagreements over editing" but for editwarring - going over 3RR is not a necessary component of disruptive editing as I am sure you know. If you choose to submit subsequent unblock requests please address your own conduct and not the merits of you position in the content dispute. — Jake Wartenberg 21:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Oh, so, I guess the I was not actually blocked for the reasons stated by the admin that blocked me? I addressed the reasons that the admin said he blocked me for. I guess some admins think they can just make nonsense up and block for no reason. DreamGuy (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I offer to unblock (without agreeing or disagreeing with the edits or the block) if DreamGuy will agree to not edit the Candide article for the original block duration. Edits to Talk:Candide or to any other articles (within normal bounds) would be unrestricted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy repeatedly orphaned an image I worked with until it had to be deleted. This was even though an administrator approved to keep it after DreamGuy put it for deletion. He disrupted edits I made without any clear reason. I felt as if I was being harassed.--ChubsterII (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It didn't "have to be deleted", it was deleted because it was a copyright violation and served no purpose. If it had a legit purpose here it would not have been deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

• From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
• Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
• Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
• News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
• Dispatches: Sounds
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Your worrier

Reminds me of Thief. Simply south (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are you referring to? DreamGuy (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Croped BFRO image.jpg

If you believe I made an error in judgment, the process is to list the image along with your rationale at WP:DRV. Regards Nv8200p talk 19:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Windowasher has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have a disagreement with or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--Windowasher (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)