User talk:DreamGuy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current.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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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Hello :-) I removed the outdated sockpuppet template.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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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] 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)

[edit] Jack the Ripper

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] {{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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Domain tasting

Hi, DreamGuy. I've noticed the reverts between yourself and Arthur Rubin on the Domain tasting and Domain kiting articles. I recently closed a requested move discussion at Talk:Domain kiting#Requested move 2, and I notice that you didn't provide any input to that discussion. Now that I'm seeing there's more context, I wish I'd known before closing the discussion.

There's no problem getting the right content at the right title for the right reasons, but revert warring really makes the article histories less useful, and cut-and-paste moves are very problematic, because of our GFDL licence. There are people who can explain the legal bits better than I can, but speaking as someone who repairs cut-and-paste moves, I can affirm that the eat up lots of admin-hours. I'd appreciate if you would refrain from "moving" an article by simply copying the content and replacing the old one with a redirect.

As far as the actual article, I got the impression that there are a number of possibilities, some involving two separate articles. Is there any way we can get a discussion going about the best way forward? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am NOT moving the article by copying the content... I am reverting to ad old version of the other article.

The first matter of discussion is how to get the admin who is purposefully tring to ignore the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy to avoid using his status to threaten me with a block because he wants to bully his way into winning. He needs to be stopped pronto, and, frankly, that kind of behavior should really get him removed from admin status, if this encyclopedia is to ever take itself seriously. (See my talk page history for his threats, as well as his admitting on his talk page and the domain kiting talk page that the term is not the most common one).

I tried to ake a discussion, but really there isn't a lot to discuss. The term Rubin prefers is not common, and only a recent neologism by a CEO of a domain company he seems to admire. Every other source in the field uses the other term. Freaking ICANN uses domain tasting, that should settle it right there. DreamGuy 06:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for misunderstanding whether you were moving the article or reverting to a different article at the other location; either way, I'd like to see the edit warring stop, and I'm willing to protect the page if necessary, but I'd rather not.

I'm following up because every time I close an RM discussion I watchlist the page, so I noticed the back-and-forth. It really is bad to revert war when there are other options, and there are plenty of other options in this case. I don't see any reason you or anybody needs to be blocked; it's just a matter of saying the right things in the right places.

As it currently stands, there was just a move request in which there was no consensus to move the article Domain kiting to Domain tasting. Let me be clear what you're suggesting: you wish for the article to be located at Domain tasting, but using content that's already in the history at Domain tasting instead of the content in the history at Domain kiting. Have I correctly understood your position? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. The two articles do not differ much, and the points on which they do differ are incorrect opinions of some people who want to make domain kiting into a real term. Note that even the content at domain kiting says domain tasting is the proper term, the only possible pointof dispute is whether domain kiting is a new and valid term for some SUBSET of the more common domain tasting. Even if it were, which I would strongly argue against, domain tasting is the clear main topic, with kiting as an offshoot. Attempts to get rid of tasting completely by the admin so that the word can be a different one that he himself wants to become prevalent is simply not how things are done here. He's trying to force his opinion of what the term should be onto the rest of the world. DreamGuy 06:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being patient with my catching up with you. It sounds like you're in agreement with at least one of the commenters in that requested move discussion. Is it possible that we should have two articles, one at each title? It appears that "domain tasting" is both the older and more general term, so there ought to be an article there, and maybe one could ask whether or not the sub-concept of "domain kiting" should have its own separate article, or should just be covered in the article on domain tasting.

There's something more complicated than a move request that should happen, because the article's history is currently fragmented across two locations, due to old cut-and-paste moves, and it's very hard to trace the origin of specific bits of content. Let's set up a talk page discussion section asking whether we want one or two articles, if two, what they should cover, and if one, what it should be called. We'll make sure everyone involved has a chance to be heard in the discussion, and then we'll decide on the best solution, and it'll take admin assistance to implement it without further muddying the history.

Does that sound acceptable, and can you agree to stop reverting until the discussion happens? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I really doubt that there is any need at all for two separate articles, as if domain kiting actually exists as a separate term it's a very recent Wikipedia:Neologism and certainly not notable on its own, as it is primarily 99% domain tasting but with a minor spin. What could you even say there? "See domain tasting but with this one minor change." That's not an article, that's a footnote in an article.

I can understand the complicatd page history being a problem and so forth, but the more important thing to consider here is that we have clearcut policies on how to handle these situations, and that an admin and a couple of other people have abused that. Opening up a discussion for a clear cut issue like this, where the other side even ADMITS that domain tasting is the preferred term in the field but that THEY don't want to use it, means having a discussion where people intentionally ignoring clear policy have just as much say as people following policy. That's a recipe for disaster.

The only way I would agree to stop reverting is if it's guaranteed that the articles be locked as they are now, with domain kiting redirecting to domain tasting, and that the admin won't use his admin powers to undo it even while locked. Reverting is just like any other edits here, and when it needs to be done,it should be done. Asking for the page to be wrong and the information to be wrong just to avoid upsetting people who don't care if it's wrong is not a good strategy. Wikipedia seems to be set up so that anyone who prevails in running through red tape long enough can win even if they are wrong. We need to have the content be right or else there's no point to it. DreamGuy 06:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration; please believe me that Wikipedia is not the red-tape nightmare you imagine it to be. As far as reverting repeatedly, I don't know whether you'll believe me, but I assure you, it's an ineffective strategy. If you actually are willing to keep revert warring, then you'll eventually be blocked and unable to edit, no matter who's "right".

A hugely important rule of thumb working here is this - being right can't ever justify revert-warring. You absolutely can win by being right, but you have to be willing to back up your rightness with patience and with a diplomatic approach. I know it's counter-intuitive, but in the long run, you'll have better luck leaving an article in the wrong version while you enlarge the scope of the discussion, and bring more eyes to the problem. There are simple strategies for getting around stubborn editors, whether they're admins or vandals or whoever; but you just have to be willing to use those strategies.

The best advice I can give you is to stop reverting, even if the other editor reverts, but be patient, for just a few days, and do everything right on the talk page. Set up a discussion that clearly asks the right questions, register your input, solicit wider input at RfC or at an appropriate WikiProject if you wish, and then when a number of people have articulated the right reasons for doing the right thing, you can do it with much less chance of being reverted, and confident that passersby will support your action, based on a talk-page demonstration of consensus.

Think about it - if an admin comes along and sees you setting up focused discussions even when the article is not in your preferred version, they'll see you as the clear good-faith editor. If they see you revert warring, they don't necessarily see who's right and who's wrong; they see edit warring as wrong, period. Don't knock your head against that reality, and you'll be happier here. All it takes is being a little bit patient and unfailingly polite about it all. It works; I promise.

You say that people ignoring policy will have as much voice in a discussion as those following policy, but that's not correct. Discussions here aren't decided on weight of numbers, but on the arguments; furthermore, if people in a discussion aren't making sense or are ignoring policy, then you can always bring in more people, and you'll be entirely right to do so, as long as you solicit opinions neutrally and in the appropriate venue(s). -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note at User talk:Arthur Rubin#Domain tasting/kiting, by the way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There appears to have been concensus (before DreamGuy came in, actually) that domain kiting is the proper term. It may not have been based on facts. I think an article RfC is appropriate, but the current history of domain tasting should be deleted as a fork, or the edit histories need to be merged, before a move can be made. (Merging edit histories is an Admin task which I don't know how to do correctly.) The talk page edit history is all at Talk:domain kiting, indicating that domain tasting is the fork. Could we keep the article at domain kiting while someone merges the edit histories before deciding what to do? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I can merge the histories when I get a chance later today, because that needs to happen whatever we decide, and we'll get a discussion set up over the relative merits of the two titles. As for which title it has in the meanwhile, I'll do whatever makes the merge most convenient; there are generally fewer buttons to push one way than the other. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy, your input at Talk:Domain kiting#Sorting this out would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this is still ongoing. You can't have a consensus that domain kiting is the proper term when the people coming to that consensus have NOTHING to back it up and ignore clear, indisputable evidence that ther term is actually domain tasting. ALL the links on the article to sources all use tasting. ICANN uses tasting. This isn't a time for more talk, it's a time to just follow Wikipedia policy and get it over with. If they claim kiting is more common, have them come up with more official sources using that term than the ones already provided using the other term. Until such time they have absolutely no rationale to be holding this up. DreamGuy 07:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If you had communicated that in the move request discussion in the first place, all of this could have been avoided. Thanks for making it truly unpleasant to get the job done. I strongly encourage you to become an admin and take over the work I do; I'm certain you'll be altogether better at it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not under dispute, but unfortunately all the spammers, POV-pushers, people who are here for social reasons instead of working on an encyclopedia and so forth go out of their way to oppose anyone who would get anything substantive done. DreamGuy 04:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Believe what you like. I hope you find peace and happiness in this world. I kind of hope I don't run into you again; this interaction left a bad taste in my mouth. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As it would to anyone shirking their responsibilities and taking steps to make the encyclopedia worse instead of better. If making the encyclopedia more factual and more in line with what its own policies state we should be doing is distasteful to you then you ought to consider going to a site where it isn't expected to happen on a regular basis. DreamGuy 11:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to believe whatever you like. I've never done anything on this website with an intention other than making the encyclopedia better. Your spectacularly bad communication skills and boorish manner made this particular move request painful to complete. Now that I've apologized for making a mistake and done exactly what you requested, you're still criticizing me and calling my good faith into question. I suggest you file an RfC and get me desysoped, quickly. You seem to have a real issue with my wanting to follow established procedure instead of just doing what you say, immediately when you say it, without bothering to make a talk page record of the reasons first. You seem to think that you're exempt from having to communicate in the appropriate forum and participating in consensus building.

You're going to run into a lot of conflict with that attitude of yours, but I guess that's what you want. If you don't review my move log, make a case to get me banned from the site, and follow through on it, I'll be quite disappointed. I look forward to seeing you in RfC. Good day. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)