Thanks for the welcome! Gosh, I got the fancy version. Wakedream (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Am I a bad guy, well, yes, technically, if you give a narrow read to Simulated_MediaWiki_interfaces; we are, both of us, simulating a rather minor aspect of the mediaWiki interface, thereby potentially misleading hapless readers, but you are in good company, so far as I'm concerned. And we are, both of us, very small fry at this game of user interface simulation. Consider larger fry, such as Certified.Gangsta. Remarkably, hapless readers might think, they always get new messages whenever they visit good old Certified.Gansta. Until, of course, they try to read their new messages. Then they might think differently of good old Certified.Gansta. Such UI spoofing engenders extensive discussion. But then, almost anything engenders extensive discussion on Wikipedia, because, no matter how fine a point may be, there's always a Wikipedia editor willing to make it finer. I'm of the school that it is always better to ask for forgiveness than permission, so have fun — in a verifiable way that does not entail original research or a less-than-neutral viewpoint. Gosgood (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I checked out Simulated_MediaWiki_interfaces and don't see what I did listed as a no no. Of course, as you said, somebody somewhere probably won't like it, but that seems to be true of everything on Wikipedia. I'm trying to avoid causing myself problems, especially for something as trivial as my user page. Thanks! Wakedream (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with these unusual phobia articles is lack of serious references. Please keep in mind that sites like [1], [2] have obvious conflict of interest and hence credibility for their information is low. Please see -phob-#Phobia lists. Also, they do not provide source of their information. A reasonable criterion for an encyclopedia is to see an article in a serious medical book or journal. Also an entry in a dictionary is good for wiktionary, not for wikipedia. Please notice, for example, thst this webpage also gives neither source of the info nor the authorship by a reputable person, hence it is not reliable reference for wikipedia.

That said, good luck in finding good sources. `'Míkka>t 04:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still thinking about doing an article, but will definitely want your comments on it. Thanks for your help! Wakedream (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The joke is appreciated, but notice that these tags placed your user page into certain categories and hence create unnecessary clutter for people who are busy with cleaning wikipedia. `'Míkka>t 19:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I wanted to make a joke at my own expense, but certainly didn't want to cause unnecessary clutter for anyone else. I'm assuming my "fake stub" is all right--I don't believe it will show up on any stub category. If it's a problem, let me know and I'll remove that too. Wakedream (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recall the DaCosta claim from years ago. But I couldn't find much on the Internet. It's something that would require visits to a library or maybe someone who has Lexis. Pepso2 (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you added to the article is great. While there's not a whole lot of info, I don't think we'll find a source more accepted on Wikipedia than Time Magazine! Wakedream (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! It IS the BEST. The first British edition (second print) was bought for me as a child in 1966. My mother bought it for my niece, Sophia in the 1980's. she then bought it for my Great Niece, Annaleece, this Christmas. When I got curious and found there was a page for RS, but not BWBE, I had to write it, but I got carried away and It got deleted as Advertising. This, of course, is where the problem begins. Your man who sees it as a recreated page jumps on it. I can see his point in a way- if you jump on people and make them do it before they forget about it, they learn how and do it right next time, but it is not the Wiki way- he bit the newcomer! He claims that "recreating deleted pages is a no-no", but it isn't. recreating UNCHANGED deleted pages is and I fixed what they told me to do, so you are right. I won't say anything more on the subject to him. LETS DO THIS PAGE!

Take a look at the references I have inserted. If you think they are at least tolerable, then remove the warning thingy- out of courtesy, I won't do it myself.

I tried to put in a book infobox but I can't figure out how to put things in it- can you help? I will write a list of things we could do to improve the page on its discussion page. I see you are a writer. So am I: http://icedragon64.deviantart.com/

Thats because we read BWBE!

How did you come to see this page?

Best Wishes and thanks for your support. IceDragon64 (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like Richard Scarry's work. Makes you wonder how people ever learned to read with Dick and Jane.

As to some editors, I think some people have a hard time being assertive without being aggressive. It's like the frightened kitty cat who puffs out her hair to look bigger. And it can be all too easy to lash out at a Wikipedia name on your computer screen without thinking about the person behind the alias, especially when you know that person won't know who you are.

I found the article as I was looking through articles proposed for deletion. I wondered, "Why on earth would they want to delete an article about that book?" so went there to find out.

I believe you made a wise decision in not deleting the tag. It could get you bombarded with 20 different Wikipedia policies you'd supposedly violated, some of them bogus, but some of them probably correct. I'll go check out the article now. Wakedream (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I could see it was meant to be helpful. As for UA, I can't believe nobody's ever asked McCartney about it, and even though his answer may not be correct, if it's sourced, we can use it. Hence my trip to the library on Monday. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you ever have questions about how things work, feel free to use me as a resource.  :) --Elonka 20:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course any article that became features has its chances of being vandalized increased, but we don't protect articles preventively, and preventively protective featured articles is something which has always been explicitly discouraged. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. · AndonicO ^Hail! 19:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just substituted … for .... They rend better typography.

--

Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is now 6 days and 16 hours since you boldly edited Naturism. I didn't want to congratulate you earlier in case that had precipitated the wrath of the gods- and the heavens had turned black and a plague of locusts consumed out first born- but now it appears as if consensus has been reached. Well done.ClemRutter (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it hasn't caused any problems, other than I think a radiational tidal wave hit a star in Alpha Centauri and made it go nova. Honestly, though, I was basically following the suggestions of you and others. You helped teach me to swim; I just happend to be the one who jumped in! Wakedream (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you edited with a prior account?

We've had a lot of trouble with people using multiple accounts around waterboarding. You should be aware that your editing point of view appears to be similar to that of several banned users, and this may raise suspicions sooner or later. Jehochman ^Talk 20:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strive to make my editing "point of view" on the Waterboarding article, or any Wikipedia article, NPOV. If any banned users asserted the NPOV on Wikipedia, then I suppose I have that in common with them. Actually, the editor I seem to have the most in common with in this discussion is a user by the name of Jehochman. See here and here, and then compare them to here and here. In answer to your question, I haven't edited the Waterboarding article using any other account--although even if I did, that is not necessarily a violation of Wikpedia policy (I think many editors don't fully understand what an unacceptable sock puppet is). So unless you're implying that I'm your sock puppet, or that you're mine, I don't think there's a problem. Unless, of course, we run into an overzealous and misinformed editor who has a little too much power.... Wakedream (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has raised the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Wakedream. Please respond there if you like. Jehochman ^Talk 13:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I tried responding there, but apparently I'm not allowed to respond to my accusers. Hopefully, somebody will see this and post a link to this there.)

"Sock puppet" seems to be to early 21st century Wikipedia what "Communist" was to early 1950s America. The sock puppets are part of an Evil Empire, and will sneak in and destroy us all!

As it happens, I don't know who User:BryanFromPalatine, aka User:Neutral Good, aka User:Shibumi2 is or are. In my opinion, my response to being accused of being a sock puppet wasn't "extremely negative" (see the accusation and my allegedly "extremely negative" post. (To clarify, the accusation listed above came after my response to the suspicion.) Yes, I didn't respond cheerily--I think if I did, it would appear to be sarcastic. Besides, how would you feel if you were accused of being a sock puppet?

Am I a new editor on Wikipedia? Not entirely. I've made several edits to Wikipedia under different IP addresses, depending upon which computer I was using at the time. I wanted to get a feel for Wikipedia before I chose a permanent handle. I feel I'm somewhere in between new and experienced, as I had indicated here.

Have other editors used any of the same IP addresses as me? I would be surprised if they didn't. I use more than one computer, including some found at an educational institution that are accessible to thousands of people. In addition, I have friends who use Wikipedia and sometimes we use the same computer. We may even have made edits to some of the same articles, but I'm not sure. I don't monitor their computer use, and I assume they don't monitor mine. I doubt any of them have edited Waterboarding.

Am I a new editor outside of Wikipedia? No. As I said on my member page, I've worked as a professional writer. I also have some basic knowledge of computer programming, and have found most of Wikipedia's codes (references, etc.) relatively easy to learn.

If you have evidence that I have abused my position as an editor, I'd like to see it. I have tried to be courteous and maintain NPOV in my edits to articles, and realized that my temper was on the edge of flaring up in regard to the Waterboarding article. Because of that, I asked an experienced editor for help and advice.

You might also want to note my response to my editing being inappropriate here, and see the full discussion here. I believe this will show I've made a sincere effort to be courteous and reasonable. Note that I made no edits to the Waterboarding article after I was advised to step away for awhile, and in fact none since the discussion above, although I did participate in Talk:Waterboarding.

Please note that all of my posts listed above were made before I was accused of being a sock puppet--oh yes, I guess they would be, or I wouldn't have been able to make them!

Thank you for considering the position of an editor who wants to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Wakedream (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked by User:Lar, per the findings of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wakedream. Jehochman ^Talk 18:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Because I have not used one or more accounts abusively. Please see here

Decline reason:

Per the above evidence (see checkuser case) you are likely the blocked user Scibaby. The evidence is strong, and I see no reason to think that you are NOT Scibaby. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

With all due respect, I am not Scibaby, and see no evidence indicating that I am Scibaby. As I've already requested, could I please see the evidence? I realize that, as Wikipedia isn't a government, it doesn't have to follow the rights of a defendant that are commonly recognized by civilized nations. But it seems unfair to be told, "We know you're guilty but won't tell you why." I checked and didn't see a single article Scibaby and I both edited. If you compare our talk pages, you will see posts that are quite upset with Scibaby. If you'll check my user page, you'll find that mine have been civil. And if you'll check my defense above or check here, you'll find that even in the midst of heated controversy I strove to remain civil. And as more than one user pointed out in the discussion on my block, IPs are often shared by different servers and proxies, and as I stated above I sometimes use public computers. The Wikipedia notice on being blocked states all these as reasons for false blocks. If this block continues, what recourse can I take?

Decline reason:

Click on the checkuser case. It found that you and other known Scibaby socks used the same IPs. Civil or not, that's a reason to block. — Daniel Case (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Naturism (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naturism (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]