User talk:Dream Focus

Wikipedia Ads	file info – #193

Archives
	♫♫♫♫♫ Dream Focus
	Conflicts
	Interaction with others
	Bilateral discussions
	storage
	Whoops.
	Barnstars, kittens, cookies, and holiday greetings
	This user believes in the power of the Easter Bunny.
	This user would like to remind you to always brush your teeth, so you don't get severe cavities as I have.
	This user greatly enjoyed the Ultima series up to Ultima 7(downhill from there).
	Articles I created which no one successfully managed to delete
	There are 3,891,946 articles on the English Wikipedia. Many of them deserve to be here, and I hope to save all of those.

incl	This user is an inclusionist.

	This user rescues articles for the Article Rescue Squadron.

	This user has been on Wikipedia for 5 years, 7 months and 19 days.

Dream Focus Talk Page

Never hesitate to say whats on your mind. I always try my best to understand others.

April 2009

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Calling someone a fool, even on your talk page, is a violation of the WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL policies. --EEMIV (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh get over yourself. I did not call an actual person a fool, saying only that whoever went and nominated it for 7th time would be a fool, do to their actions. Its only against the rules if I insult an actual person, not someone who doesn't exist yet. Dream Focus 16:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I misread it as "the same fool". I suppose the warning for WP:NPA in this instance isn't apt, although your ongoing antagonism and insults -- even if vaguely thrown -- certainly run counter to WP:CIVIL. --EEMIV (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Threatening to have someone blocked is antagonistic and insulting. Next time read things carefully, before tossing out a threat like that. It isn't something you should do so lightly. On another note, would you believe it is antagonistic and insulting to constantly go around trying to delete articles that are less than one day old, or have already been voted Keep several times already, ignoring consensus and trying to delete something people said Keep(this is called a merge, even if nothing is merged, you just have to put a redirect there), accusing someone of nonsense constantly, mentioning the same idiotic examples of something even though its already been discussed and worked through(the canvasing nonsense), etc.? Have you read through everything on the most recent trial of character? I would like some comments on specific examples, and whether you believe they should bring up these same exact things, every chance they get. Also, was it wrong for me to ask my question here? Two editors who are accusing me seem to be very against me being able to do this. Dream Focus 18:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite preaches civility, but does his own unsolicited advice apply to himself?

See User:Dream_Focus#AfD_comments where Black Kite criticizes you about civility.

Commpare with this,[1] with Black Kite advertising that you comments are "clueless" Ikip (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL! He joined wikipedia to delete stuff that most people like, and unfortunately he can't do that now, so he is quitting. Since we've faced problems with him before, closing AFD his way, ignoring consensus of all the keeps, I'm glad to see him go, and more so that I was one of the ones that caused him to give up(although he'll probably be back soon enough). The golden age may come again, and the many articles that thrived since the time when wikipedia was young, only to be destroyed by hordes of deletitionists later on who decided the encyclopedia shouldn't have such things in it, shall be restored. When notability guidelines are replaced entirely by common sense, or a large tag atop them saying "these are just suggestions people! Use the reasoning part of your brain for things!" I dream of a day this will come to pass, and wikipedia will be the interesting paradise it once was. Dream Focus 00:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

re this and others; the principles of assuming good faith, avoiding personal attacks, and civility apply to edit summaries as well as to talk page posts. Tempting though it may be to post an innocuous message with a snarky summary (and I know I've done it myself in the past) I would advise you not to.  pablo_hablo. 22:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh get a life. There was nothing wrong with that. If people Googled they'd find information very quickly, and not have to waste our time going through an AFD. Dream Focus 23:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

… And as your edit summary for that last post was "stop trying to pick a fight with someone about nothing pretending you aren't. No one is fooled" I will take it that you do not agree.  pablo_hablo. 23:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[2] Wasn't your last comment snarky? You do that a lot. And did you assume good faith when you read my edit summary telling someone to Google before nominating something for AFD? I do not believe you have a sincere complaint or concern here. Not stop pestering me with your games. Dream Focus 00:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't intended as a complaint, and I'm not particularly concerned one way or the other. Just wanted to make sure you were aware of the guideline here, which I have only recently read myself:

Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved.

Whether you choose to abide by the guidelines is, as ever, up to you.  pablo_hablo. 09:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a guideline against Let's give Man In Black a wedgie and put him in a sack and tow it through a cow pasture! too. Dream Focus 13:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so. Feel free to chime in with the discussion here if you have anything to add.  pablo_hablo. 14:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions before participating in an AfD debate again. DJ 10:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been in enough to know how things end. There is no vote of the general populace on any of those essay/guideline/policy pages, it all up to whatever small group camps out there the longest, adding what they want, reverting others, and arguing nonstop until the other side gives up in frustration. Therefor you can't expect any reasonable person to take any of it seriously. Wikipedia is not a set of rules. You ignore all rules, and use common sense. Dream Focus 10:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well millions disagree with you. WP:NOTANARCHY. DJ 10:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, you've never had even 1% of Wikipedia users participate in any of those things. And what exists now, was not there in the early years of Wikipedia, back in the golden age, before the evil hoards of deletionists forced their will upon the silent masses, changing policies, and mass deleting things calling it cruft, hacking large chunks of articles away because they didn't like it, and nominating many others for deletion. Dream Focus 10:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But I Digress

Dreamfocus: I suggest you pick up the March 2010 issue of Comic Buyer's Guide and read the column "But I Digress." I think you will appreciate it.Padguy (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning that. I am curious to see what you wrote. Dream Focus 05:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Kind of ironic that during the AFD, they didn't consider you a credible reference despite your experience in the industry, but as soon as you publish something, it does become a credible reference used to establish notability. Same guy, saying the same thing, but only when its in print, do they take it seriously. And there are articles for a lot of things the actor has had a significant role in, as the blue links in his filmography section of his article now indicate. You mention the deletionist nominator didn't consider Space Cases to be a notable work, and yet is long had an article on the Wikipedia. Dream Focus 14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG

I agree 90% with you! Bearian (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Dream_Focus#Deletionist_mentality_forced_upon_the_rest

I agree 100% with your newest essay. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Dream Focus has great commentaries.--Milowent (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa cool! Someone actually reads that. Dream Focus 17:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite correct in your analysis. The ignorance I keep seeing displayed in Afds never fails to stun me. See this example. "Minor"? He is considered the founder of the many decades old and international scounting movement that has affected millions of people. Moreover, he was one of the commanders in the siege of Mafeking, one of the two most important in the Boer War. Winning one of history's decisive victories in a significant colonial conflict (one of Britain's costliest and most well known from that era and one with long-term ramifications) and founding one of the most well-known international movements is hardly "minor". As far as his alleged homosexuality not being a "vast topic" is just ludicrously false. Do a Google Books search of Baden-Powell and sexuality or homosexuality and you get hundreds of results with multi-paragraph anaylses in published books, such as in this paragraph or this entry. Declaring him "minor" reflects a lack of familiarity of his actually significant role in history, something any historian would know. Saying his sexuality has not received significant attention is either a false declaration or yet again reflects either not actually doing any even cursory research or having no real knowledge of the subject. And in a larger sense, humans as living creatures are driven in a significant part by their biology. The notion that our sexual desires does not influence us is ludicrous. In order to understand important historical figure's motivations, we need to consider even the controversial aspects of their lives. Now, from a purely academic standpoint, AfDs are frequently so out of touch with facts, honesty, etc. and are therefore so surreal as to defy just about any seriousness. Actual experts on any given subject do not frown upon Wikipedia because it covers some subjects that a vocal minority arbitrarily and usually ignorantly deem non-notable, but we frown upon Wikipedia on occasion rather because a vocal minority arbitrarily and usually ignorantly deems subjects for which they are not experts non-notable. And we keep seeing that every time someone bafflingly refers to someone with actual historical significance in at least two major instances as "minor." Just as we do with the example of the image you have recently edited, i.e. as the article cites an instance in which someone wanting to delete refers to a guy as a female amidst other factual errors that anyone familiar with the subject would not make. One other thing to keep in mind is that it is not as if "deletionists" outnumber the masses. One of the major failings of AfDs is that they do NOT reflect the actual will of the community. They are nothing more than a snapshot in tiem reflection of usually at best a dozen editor's who happen to be familiar with Afds. Most critically is that those with the mindset you describe are far more apt to hover around AfDs, whereas most others prefer article contributions (I like welcoming new editors myself...) or are sufficiently busy in their real lives so as to be unable to devote time to such discussions. Thus, we end up with scenarios in which thousands of people come here for an article that scores of editors contributed to being decided by a handful of accounts that in many instances have neither interest nor knowledge in the subject under discussion and because they personally are not interested in it and thus are unwilling to do any real research to see how it can be sourced/improved, they declare it is not worthy for anyone else either. We can generally agree that hoaxes, libel, and copyright violations have no place on Wikipedia and so I would never fault someone for wanting to protect Wikipedia from legally damaging or dishonest content. But once we start seeing calls to delete based on subjective bases, such as notability, then we start getting into deletion as a matter of personal preference indeed being forced upon others. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User page

I like your userpage. The topics and things you come up with is similar to the type of things that I see yet don't have the time to get to involved in them. Anyway, I may visit your user page from time to time to get a low down on what happening on wikipedia. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I probably need to edit that and get things organized and written better one of these days. Dream Focus 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Google searches for notability

From one ARS member to another: you might want to consider linking to the first few good sources you find instead of pointing to the search itself like you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jer's Vision. IMHO it's much more effective at proving notability to other participants and whoever closes the discussion. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If they are too lazy to click on one link, they aren't going to click on several. Dream Focus 20:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll try not to do it again.

Hello Dream Focus, Narutolovehinata5 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. We all make mistakes at times. Just try to imagine the feelings of a first time Wikipedia contributor next time around. Dream Focus 07:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding merging

Hi, I was directed to your essay/note on how merging is de facto deletion a few weeks ago and in scanning your userpage I thought I saw something about an RfC or something similar regarding one of these kinds of merges (where instead of merging the article it was just redirected). I was wondering what the result of the RfC (or whatever it was) was. Are the "powers that be" fine with this kind of thing? Was there in fact such an RfC filed? This is an issue I feel kind of strongly about. Thanks for any help in this matter. -Thibbs (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You have to be more specific. Are you talking about the manga/anime merges or the Ultima merge perhaps? The discussion for the merge of Ultima was at [3] and the majority of people participating said they were against the merge. It never should've happened. Search the discussion for "7 against the mergers, 4 for the merges, and 1 guy for one but against the other two. I think consensus is to not merge anything." I'd also like to point out that there was canvassing at the Wikipedia video game board [4] by a deletionists flat out asking for people to support him in destroying all of the Ultima articles. Read his comments please. An edit and revert war happened, I finally just waiting at the administrator notice board for an administrator to get involved, but none of them responded. Dream Focus 04:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• You can find someone posting about an AFD that ended in merge,but the article was just replaced by a redirect instead. [5] Several editors protested this, saying some information should be merged over, as was consensus. If you look at the history of the article it was suppose to be merged to, you can see the first of many reverts by various editors was done at 07:41, 6 February 2009 by Kintetsubuffalo[6]. It went to RFC as I recall, and consensus was to merge information. After a few weeks, that information was deleted again by the same stubborn deletionist. The discussion was on the talk page [7]. It then went to Wikiquette board [8] but was closed after some arguing there, with the message to send it to another board, which I recall we did. Dream Focus 04:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure what it was I thought I'd seen then. This last example you gave me (the Akane-chan Overdrive incident) is exactly what I'm talking about, though. I find the use of a simple redirect following a vote to "merge" to be exceptionally sloppy editing to the point of recklessness. When such a redirect (under the name of a "merge") is performed by someone who knows better (e.g. an admin) then I think reprimands are in order. WP:MERGETEXT clearly states that of the two kinds of merger which may be performed the only options are the copying-over of all of the content of the "merge-from" article or the copying-over of some of the content of the "merge-from" article. Copying over none of the content, I would argue, is simply "deletion" against consensus (assuming there's been a AfD). WP:MERGETEXT lists 2 "actions which must be performed for both merger types" and the precursor condition to step #1 is "copying the content" (The rule begins "1. After copying the content..."). WP:MERGETEXT is described as a how-to guide detailing a practice or process, but I think that it's most closely comparable to Wikipolicy as opposed to, for example, an essay in userspace. At the very least, a how-to guide detailing a practice or process should provide evidence as to the primary meaning of the term as used by voters in an AfD.

• I was kind of hoping that this reckless and perhaps at times underhanded practice had been addressed in the "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" section at RfC. I'd really like to see some sort of consequence to follow if any of the people patrolling RfD can be shown to be consistently doing this sort of "redirect in lieu of a merge." Maybe this isn't the best solution though. As I write this, it strikes me that perhaps all we need is for an editor or group of editors to monitor all merges and to put up a template warning editors that have failed to perform a proper merge that their actions have been reverted and to please try again. (This assumes I believe correctly that the default position for a pre-merged article is "keep until merged") Sounds like kind of a full-time job... Hmm. I'm kind of busy these days, but I'll try to come up with a template like this in the next few days. Do you think such a plan could work? -Thibbs (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Another thought: Perhaps a study should be done regarding how commonly these kinds of merges are occurring. Gaining endorsement by WP:UW for a warning template of the kind I discussed above would probably best work if the systemic problem is empirically demonstrable. I'm very busy off-wiki for the next weekish, but hopefully I can devote a little time to such a study after that. -Thibbs (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Update: Sorry to inundate you with messages like this. Here are some example templates I just made quickly to demonstrate what I'd be interested in ultimately. -Thibbs (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• There have also been times where they "merge" over everything from a group of character articles, and then trim it down to reduce 99% of it. I haven't seen that happen lately though. Anyway, good look with the warning templates. It'd be great if they had something like that to prevent problems. Dream Focus 16:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

On tagging but not posting

There's some articles that I find on AfD that I believe just barely meet notability standards, so I add sources and the tag to them. But I am not entirely sure about their notability, so I wait to see where the discussion goes. If it overwhelmingly goes to Delete, even with my sources added, I don't bother with it. If it's about even or mainly Keeps, then I will add my voice.

There's other articles as well that I am entirely unsure about the notability and I don't tag them with the rescue template, but I do add all the sources I can find and watch the AfD page. That way, I can see how they go.

In short, the ones I don't comment on, I do that because I am not sure about the notability of the pages and I wait to see where consensus is heading before adding my voice. Silverseren^C 07:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your voice is what forms consensus. If you believe its notable, then speak up. Don't let others discourage you. Dream Focus 07:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Iceland–Mexico relations

Please express an opinion at Iceland–Mexico relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe he is doing that again, nominating articles he previously nominated in the past, but failed to have deleted. Remember, when you contact everyone from the previously AFD, as the rules state you can as long as everyone is contacted, you should mention "The guy who nominated this article for deletion last time, has done it again. The article is EXACTLY the same content as last time. Everyone who participated in the AFD last time is being contacted." Or they might not consider that neutral. Just mention its the same AFD they did last time, instead of just asking for an opinion, in case they don't remember this, and don't know why you are telling them about it. Dream Focus 04:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Citing Google hits

Look, before you cite Google hits as evidence for the notability of a topic (as here), perhaps you should check to make sure that a significant number of the hits refer to the person in question. (In this case, a number of the hits refer to the person's grandmother, Muriel Buck Humphrey.) I'm sure that many, many people have pointed out this to you before, but I'll try once again—simply linking to a set of Google hits does not establish the notability of anything; you need to show that the hits refer to the subject of the article and that they are substantive, reliable secondary sources that establish the subject's notability. Deor (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Look through the summaries and yes, some of those are clearly him. Spend a few moments glancing over it. I'll reply in that topic. Dream Focus 03:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

See how easy that was? [9] You could've easily just read through the summaries, looking at anything published after the year 2000 to see what was him. I can not link to the articles themselves, since all newspapers seem to require people to pay to read the full article these days, and what you end up with is less than what you can read in the Google search summary usually anyway. Dream Focus 03:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If you think that those articles establish his notability, you haven't read our notability guidelines very well. And if you think that blindly and continually asserting notability despite the guidelines is a good idea, you obviously haven't been paying attention to the adventures of A Nobody and Ikip/Okip and a number of other editors who have thought that notability is an irrelevant concept. At least you're not (usually) defacing articles to make your point; I'll give you that. Deor (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines are not binding in any possible way, they just suggestions. Groups gang up to have their agenda passed, they achieving this as an excuse to mass delete vast numbers of Wikipedia articles that had been around for years. No vote was ever done, no significant number of people involved in editing the guideline articles, and no ruling by the Wikipedia foundation. Some people try to delete best selling novels and manga series that sell over 30 million copies, because they can't find any reviews. But more often than not, these sorts of things end up with a keep, do the common sense of those participating or that of the closing administrator. Its all random though. Give the same group of articles to different administrators and some would close as keep, where others would say delete. You never know what you are going to get. Dream Focus 04:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad I saw this discussion Dream, I took some time to dig through the sources and find that many are not included in the current article, which had even missed the subject's appointment to a leadership position with US Immigration this past fall.--Milowent (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Dream_Focus#Another_typical_day_for_the_Rescue_Squadron

• Nice note. We should create some stats on the worst nominators regarding their unsuccessful AfD rate!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of speech

Wherever I go on Wikipedia, your username seems to pop up (maybe I notice it because of the colors (or should I say colours) but I notice anyway). Although we obviously have different points of view I like the way that you battle for the freedom of speech and information on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! (Or is that to British?). But the real reason why I am here is that, maybe in future, I would like to quote some of your statements in my user section. Would you be comfortable with that? --JHvW (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Wikipedia is all about sharing. Dream Focus 18:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wilson

"The soccer ball was named Wilson and was his only friend.". Best edit summary of the month. :-)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! It totally made my day. :) --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 19:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Kinetic Architecture

Hey Dream, thanks for helping to save the Kinetic Architecture article from being destroyed. It was a really interesting subject to research, there are stacks of amazing transformer style buildings out there, shame we are discouraged from posting links to vidieos. One of my faves was a giant bird that sits atop a museum, its wings are so big it can cover the whole building at night and it can also use them to protect visitors from blinding sun or from rain storms. I added it to the article, hope you have a chance to check it out as id guess you'll find it of interest to. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize how big that bird was until I saw the cars there, looking like toys before it. Did you know the first drawbridges were made out of Legos? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Drawbridge.gif I'm always glad when good articles get saved. Dream Focus 05:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Love the edit summary btw. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Rescue Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your hard work tirelessly finding sources for articles tagged for rescue. Alpha Quadrant talk 15:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely endorse Heroic inclusionist against the evil deletionist hordes

At least I feel understood! I have changed the Title of my article as you suggested, thanks FC 18:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Note: Moved from userpage by me. Airplaneman ✈ 18:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Click here

Please click here to find the answers to the questions you ask at the autoconfirmation RFC. Don't overlook the more recent/shorter time frame update on its talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Its amazing that 10,161 new users had their articles deleted, and only 64 remained to continue editing after that. Many just having their article nominated or prodded for deletion, or it turned into a redirect, might take off as well. Dream Focus 02:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

How do you do it?

Dream, you probably don't know me, but I wanted to ask you something. I first encountered your tag on AfDs, which is the only thing I occasionally peruse now. From there, I found your user page, and that is when I was convinced that you are definitely a kindred spirit in heart. I used to be quite active on Wikipedia, but after an incident involving a deletionist (nominating hundreds of articles a day after tagging them with every notability tag possible - including ones that made no sense), I lost heart. A lot of work is now gone, perhaps forever, over just not being able to keep up with what he was doing. I did save one! - (Bunnies & Burrows) - but others of equal references went bye-bye in ways you describe on your user page. So, now that I've given a little background, I have a question for you. How do you keep on going? In the past, I was passionate about trying to help Wikipedia. I took a break after the Gavin incident, and after two years, he has finally been banned. However, hundreds (maybe thousands) of articles are now gone - and each one could have been saved. I am just not sure I want to even try anymore. What would be the point? Wikipedia has changed - and I am not sure I want to be part of the environment it has become. Yet, you strive forward - and try to make a difference. Feel free to reply on my talk page if you like - or keep it here. I look forward to reading your response. (Interesting note, I had to comment on some AfDs really quick to get my recent posts high enough to post this here) Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think anyone but new users can post here, and you are only a new user until you have been around for four days and made at least 10 edits, or something minor like that. As long as you are logged in and not an IP address, it shouldn't be a problem. The relentless rampage of the hordes of evil deletionists does indeed cause many to loose hope at times. But I focus on the majority of AFDs I participate in that end in Keep, instead of dwelling on the unfortunate few that end up getting deleted. Its horrible when logic fails, and the bad guys get their way, however for the most part, as long as enough people show up to notice what's going on and comment, the articles are saved. If you see an article that you believe can be saved, tag it for the Rescue Squadron and help is on the way. Category:Articles_tagged_for_deletion_and_rescue. Be warned of course, some deletionists do sometimes go there just to find a reason to delete something and insult us. Must be careful to remain calm and not sink to their despicable level. Dream Focus 01:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletionists

Just been reading your excellent defence over at the RfC. Sometimes it feels like theres such a chasm separating us from our deletionist friends that there no way for productive dialogue to occur. Some seek to preserve interesting content and a friendly welcoming collegiate environment while others seem to be here just to destroy knowledge and practice their verbal attacks. There can be no bridge between these two camps.

On the other hand Im becoming increasingly convinced that the way deletionists are portrayed in the media as spiteful book burners is only telling half the story. Theres examples like Ironholds who start out hyper deletionist but then progress to being sympathetic towards inclusionists. A couple of months back I chanced into an off wiki conversation with a deletionist and it turned out theyve spent the last ten years as a campaigner for a very good cause that I know is close to your heart. Just after I had to visit Stockholm so on the trip I read Markings by the Swedish mystic Dog Hammarskjold . It started with a quote from the even great mystic Meister Eckhart saying "Only the hand that erases can write the true thing". It felt like God was trying to tell me that some deletionists really do think destroying articles is genuinely helpful.

I guess the point Im getting to is that AGF is important even with deletionists. We may see no possible good faith explanation for their actions and arguments but that doesnt mean one doesnt exist. Its not good to risk hurting someones feelings if they actually think what theyre doing is for the best. I know its hard when they try to personalise debates, attack the squad and attack the good name of legends like Benji, Anobody and Ikip. But I think you said it best yourself – its always important "not to sink to their despicable level". FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

An all American apple pie for you!

Wishing you a very happy 4th of July. Thanks for being the Wikkis most inspiring editor. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad I'm an American, where I know that while other nations might possibly exists, none of them are nearly as important or worth bothering with. They all spell things funny and drive on the wrong side of the road anyway. Dream Focus 10:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Note, the above was a joke against the obvious stereotype Americans have in some places. Reading again now, that might not be clear. Should've included some winking smiley faces. Dream Focus 22:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I knew what you meant, it made me lol. But you're right, as we know all too well we cant count on all editors to be sensible. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well deserved

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your perseverance and hard work in finding the hard to find sources for the Jane Fonda article. Avanu (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive input

Your constructive input is appreciated. Wikipedia is about building a digital encyclopedia, and I appreciate your efforts to do so.

A barnstar for you

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thanks for your efforts to rescue articles about notable topics that have hastily been nominated for deletion without due cause. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		I notice you have made a signifigant difference in the outcome of many Articals for deletion and have defended some of my statements, so here by award you the rescue barnstar. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear dream focus

I saw you question on the page for robotics design, and that is what led me here. From your talk page I see you as someone who values what he stands for over self-indulgent pride, and though I've known people like that that to never admit to needing a compliment, you are by a long-shot the person I've read anything about here that I admire the most. I won't leave you a badge, or a kitten, but a blessing; “Y’varekh’khah Adonai v yishm rekhah. Ya’er Adonai panav elekhah vee-khunekhah. Yeesah Adonai panav elekhah, v’yahsaym l”khah shalom.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 06:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD abuse?

Is it possible to have action against someone who abuses the AfD process? For example, if the editor nominates many articles which are clearly already well sourced and notable, and always kept by the administrator, can the track record result in a complaint of abuse of process? One particular AfD has caught my eye, but I have not looked for a track record yet. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Those who nominate the most AFDs just use Twinkle to click a button and instantly nominate one article after another. Shameful really. Tell them to please follow WP:BEFORE and then when that fails, you can take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Or.. one of those boards. If you post in the wrong one, someone will tell you where to move it to. Dream Focus 08:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

NPA at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Bertha (golf club)

"The problem is people like you "

I can't think of any situation on WP, except possibly in a definition of ad hominem, where that can be a useful or appropriate phrase to use. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

So its alright to insult a group of people as he did, as long as you use a different phrase to do so? That's just plain stupid. The meaning is understood either way, so no sense not being direct and honest. He hates people who created articles he doesn't like, and I hate people who mindlessly try to destroy articles because they don't like them. Dream Focus 14:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said to a 7 year old only yesterday, two wrongs don't make a right.

Besides which, Alan's complaint was worded quite correctly to address the complaint, i.e. the edits, and not the editors. Yours doesn't even try that much. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That's right. I don't try to hide what I'm saying, while he does. He complains that anyone can create an article he doesn't think should exist, since he doesn't like it, and then argue with him in the AFDs to keep it. Dream Focus 14:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Help with an AfC?

Hi! I know we've run across each other in the AfC or AfD boards, and I know that you've done a lot of work here on Wikipedia. I wanted you to take a look at an article that I've declined due to lack of sources and then kind of erm... adopted. If the claims in the article are true (and I have no reason to believe that they aren't), then this is someone that needs to be included on Wikipedia. Since I've dipped my hand so deeply into the article and helped edit, I can't in good faith approve the page. The original article writer hasn't put it back up for submission, but I wanted to let you see it so you can decide if it's something that is ready for prime time yet. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Linda wolfe Thanks! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

I found some coverage of her straight away. I'll work on the article. This isn't a problem really. The New York Times mentions her throughout the review of one of her novels. [10] Dream Focus 08:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• If her books are notable, then the writer is notable, by rule of common sense. Her official website list reviews her books have received. [11] Any book that gets two or more notable reviews, can be made into its own article, as I have done with one of them already. Dream Focus 08:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• Type in the web address of any newspaper or magazine she is said to have written for, and then search for her name. I added a link to a New York Times article she wrote. I think the article has enough references now to be put into mainspace, notability clearly established. Dream Focus 08:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Cool- I just wanted to get someone else to help out before I made the big move. Thanks! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For a good debate, without rancor on the Middle-earth page, thank you. GimliDotNet (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Dream, thanks so much for being our most inspiring editor. Have just noticed an admin suggesting its best not to encourage deletionists to persist in renominating articles until they get the result they want. Your message is being heard! Best wishes for the holiday season and the upcoming new year! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A tiny stub can change the world!

Dream, thought you might be intersted to hear that the wikipedia stub for Zuccotti Park was responsible for that location being chose for the world's very first Occupy general assembly. Apparently this is even though it was just a "skeletal entry" at the time. Thank goodness deletionists arent always allowed to have their way and destroy all our stubs! When far sighted historians write the history of the early 21st century, I suspect folk like yourself, the Colonel and Ikip will be listed as heroes of the Age. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge != Delete

You've obviously been around a while so I was a bit surprised by this comment. A merge is a merge, not a delete. If nothing were merged it would be a redirect. You've been around long enough to understand that. Yes many of the editors, myself included, recommended deletion. Please dont forget to assume good faith. Editors are trying to gain consensus and one way to do that is to compromise.--RadioFan (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Compromise? You couldn't delete the article so you want to "comprise" and eliminate it by other means. I've replied on that talk page. We can continue the discussion there. Dream Focus 01:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you help?

Would you mind taking a look at User:Samen54? It's a new users attempt at an article deleted via AFD. I've no problem restoring it, but it needs some major fixes. The AFD had sourcing concerns that seem to have been addressed. I'm busy studying for promotion right now and I have another article someone else has asked me to write and I just can't do this thing too.--v/r - TP 03:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This guys gets coverage in various places, all of them in Spanish. Some promising sites are hidden behind paywalls. [12] Dream Focus 03:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

He's got a few sources in the new article and some on my user page but I just can't sort through it all, fix the citations, trim the article, and take it to DRV.--v/r - TP 03:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone familiar with "psiquiatra" would have to look through it. I went through Google news archive search for his name and the shorter version of "Jaume Canellas" and searched also for "psiquiatra" to try to find some significant coverage of the guy. Running the results through Google translator, and I don't see anything that other than them quoting him at times about a hospital and whatnot. Dream Focus 03:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for WP:BATTLEFIELD violation, specifically your reference to 'evil deletionists' here and at WT:ARS.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jclemens (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Normally, I would block indef for such nonsense, but I get that you've felt under a lot of stress lately. Unless consensus somehow decides that I've made an improper block, you will be off Wikipedia for one week. I encourage you to take that week to seriously reflect on the level of rhetoric you've just invoked, and how entirely incompatible it is with a collegial, community-based editing project. It bears saying that this level of us vs. them mentality is not particularly new, although I've not seen it quite as bad from you before. It is my sincere hope that you can get over the animosity you feel towards those who don't share your views and engage positively with them. Jclemens (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So they can have animosity towards all the editors who work hard on an article they decide they want to delete, but you can't have animosity to them for being such hateful people? How strange. Can't hate the haters but they can hate you? They insult the ARS constantly, and take subtle swipes at specific editors every chance they get. And there is no such thing as a battlefield mentality. Some want to mindlessly delete things they don't like, and others want to save them. No rhetoric from one side or the other will ever change that. Its just human nature to be good, evil, or misguided evil in-between. Dream Focus 13:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Dream Focus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Since when is this an actual reason for blocking? What I put on my user page is acceptable since it is my page, and related to Wikipedia, as past deletion nominations of it have proven. Also, the Article Rescue Squadron talk page I make a somewhat joking comment about the evil hordes of deletionists have finally done us in, since the template and thus the squadron have been destroyed at a rather odd AFD. How is that inappropriate? Has anyone ever been blocked for this sort of thing before? Not even a warning? Dream Focus 8:18 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

No consensus at AN/I for an unblock; please see the closing comments there. 28bytes (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you abuse this procedure by making too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked.

• Sorry for the kludgey on-hold formatting. This block is currently being discussed on ANI, and thus any block/unblock decision should not be made by a single admin reviewing unblock requests. Disposal of this block should be decided by the community in the ongoing discussion on ANI. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I find I can not post on the talk page of the administrator blocking me. I also can't post a reply in the discussion about me at Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dream_Focus_blocked. Lets see. Some agree my wording was obviously more humorous than emotional. Not sure how anyone could not see that. Some mention I received absolutely no warning ever for this. There was the time I commented "mindless deletionist drones" on someone's talk page [13] asking them to reopen an AFD so people who would actually do a decent job looking for sources could participate. I listed specifically why the guy was obviously notable. His work was clearly notable, thus he met WP:COMPOSER as the links I showed clearly demonstrated. Anyway, that perhaps was a bit emotional. No complaints at the time though. And no, having someone who argues with me in AFD constantly nominate my user page as well as others for deletion, a year or two ago, doesn't send me a message of any sort, since consensus was there was nothing wrong with my page. Dream Focus 13:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've brought the request to Jclemens attention, and I'll copy your comment to ani. I'll try to get things worked out to the agreement of all. — Ched :  ?  13:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Its odd he did that at ANI after blocking me so I couldn't participate in the discussion there. Be easier if my comments above could be put at the places I'm responding to different people saying things of course. Dream Focus 13:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Can someone unblock me so I can respond to the comments on at the ANI? Its ridiculous to have people take things out of context, from years past, and me not be able to reply directly to them. Dream Focus 14:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• I really don't wish to anger a sitting arb, or get anywhere near wp:wheel. Please hang on a bit, and I'll/we'll try to find a solution. Unfortunately we can't just "unblock for only a certain page" etc., but I'll do my best to get things worked out to the satisfaction of all. thanks DF ... be back in a bit. — Ched :  ?  14:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't worry about angering me. I blocked Dream Focus with sadness and regret, not a sense of righteous anger, and it is my sincere hope that this will be a wake-up call that his behavior is unacceptable and he really needs to change his own attitude if he wants to accomplish his goals. Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Standard practice for a blocked editor who wishes to comment at AN, ANI, etc is to place a separate section showing what you want copied, and then use {{adminhelp}} requesting it be copied. If you wish to specify where, then do so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I can not believe what this website is coming to, punishing a user for fighting censorship, destroying a tool used to protect knowledge and information from being kept hidden from us. Dream Focus is a wonderful wikipedian and I am saddened and outraged at seeing him blocked, there were 265 of us in the article rescue squadron, imagine what will happen to wikipedia if you block us all, that is 265 less helpers in maintainig order, fighting vandalism and writing articles. I've said this website is censor crazy before, but I never knew the extent until now, I might leave Wikipedia soon, I hope more people do if this is how they treat there loyal users, I need time to think first. If wikipedia can protest sopa and pipa, maybe we can protest this, even if we have to go off wiki to do so. I support the Article Rescue Squadron and Dream Focus. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I was once a member of the ARS too. There's nothing wrong with ARS...until one becomes an arse about it. Calling those who believe that a specific article does not meet Wikipedia policy for inclusion "evil" is 180 degrees contrary to the WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and the collegial editing atmosphere that Wikipedia is about. Again, Dream Focus is not blocked for believing in or supporting ARS ... they're blocked for personal attacks, WP:BATTLE mentality, and the like. Be outraged all you want - just pick your poster children a little more carefully. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't strike me as someone who truly understands what "censorship" actually means. How about you read the article on Aung San Suu Kyi, then come back to us and explain what it is? This isn't "censorship" at all, no one's trying to say that Dream Focus can't have his opinions or express them at all. The problem here is the way it's being done; if you consider that censorship, you may also find Schenck vs. United States somewhat enlightening as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

My block is now "on hold" but I still can't edit anywhere but my talk page. Someone named Яehevkor posted a link to something which is now deleted. Someone trying to frame me for something? Since the edit in question was made AFTER I was blocked, and I still can't post anywhere, it clearly wasn't me. I don't believe my IP address ever changes, since my modem is always on. So it was clearly not me. Most people see my comments as humorous, while Jclemens apparently has no sense of humor. It all started off with a deletionist stating I was always going on about the "evil deletionist", so I mockingly started calling them that. Dream Focus 18:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No one seemned to fall for the trolls tricks at least. @Phoenix , good comments, you may wish to contribute to the discussion over at Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dream_Focus_blocked. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• LOL, Dream got blocked for using "evil deletionists" in a discussion? Uncivil, but blockable? In 2009 I regularly referred to deletionists as book burners without much of a fuss. And deletionists referred to us as pokemon-festishists and and what have you, our good friend Tarc could dish out amusing inclusionist epithets at lightning speed.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy

• Blocks should not be punitive in retaliation against users, to disparage other users as punishment against users or where there is no current conduct issue of concern. Is there any reason to continue this block at all?

Does this block "prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia, deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and, encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms"? It does not. It has absolutely no purpose whatsoever unless you are doing it for

Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, even though it might have been justifiable to block someone a short time ago when they made inappropriate edits, it may no longer be justifiable to block them right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues been resolved.

So, what reason is there to continue this? I already stated day one, I understood that while most people in the ANI said they understood the humor, a few didn't get it, and that I'd edit my user page to word things in a more sensitive neutral manner. So why is this continuing? It doesn't matter if a few people on ANI don't like me and want me blocked, the rules state the reasons for a block to be given out and continued, and it doesn't say you need every single person that shows up in an ANI to agree with you or not. Dream Focus 19:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? Did you read any of the ANI discussion? Did you read your own posting asking "what if I change 'evil' to 'bad'", which is proof that you were going to continue to disparage other editors. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, writ large. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I said I understood that now. I was wondering why the word "evil" bothered people, and could I comment on what I saw as "bad" editing practices, such as nominating things for deletion without following WP:BEFORE in a different manner. I understand that some other editors perceive my words as promoting a battleground mentality, and I will watch what I say in the future and how I say it. I'm not just going to change the word evil to bad on my user page when I edit it to remove things that some might sincerely find offensive. Dream Focus 21:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

... so why did it take one of the biggest fricking wastes of time in ANI where you absolutely wasted dozens of people's editing time, failing to listen to advice, and the community finally said "enough", and now finally you come to this conclusion? Are you kidding me? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I stated several times already here and there. I'm not certain how miscommunications happened. I asked why people were upset, I talked through it, and agreed to edit my user page pointing out I never called anyone evil in any AFDs, etc. I don't always understand what everyone is saying emotional wise straight away, but I do my best to try. Just didn't word my responses properly so they understood me perhaps. Dream Focus 21:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Questioning the validity of the block or focusing on what other editors are doing isn't going to be effective in getting you unblocked. The blocking admin has been elected to arbcom, the admin who closed ANI and declined your unblock request runs to the cool calm scale of things, and there wasn't a lot of consensus to overturn the block. It is true the reason given for the block is a bit off -- there are lots of battlefields on Wikipedia -- it's actually disruptive editing which is the issue. Statements like this [14] read like threats you're going to continue the disruptive behavior as you as you get an opportunity; if you do, a very rapid long and/or indef block is likely.

What you can do is listen and take the heart the advice folks are volunteering their time to give you. Most specifically, can you agree simply not to classify other editors as anything? Not to comment on their historic editing trends or them at all? Simply focus on the article(s) under discussion, and calmly and concisely explain why you think they should remain. And accept community consensus if the decision is to delete them. If you can agree to do that, I think it's likely the block could be shortened. Nobody Ent 02:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Listen to which people? A lot of people participated in the ANI and said totally different things. It was humor, it was not humor, he didn't deserve the block, he did deserve it, he should be unblocked, he should be permanently blocked, etc. And how is that edit summary you showed threatening in any way? He said bullshit to me, I said bullshit back at him. I agreed to not make jokes about the "evil deletionist hordes"(which I only did once outside of my user page), or edit summaries like "civilization is doomed" since some people seem bothered by that. Dream Focus 02:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

incl	This user is an inclusionist.

del	This editor is a deletionist.

As for the classification thing, what do you mean? There are Wikipedia project pages that classify people as inclusionists or deletionists, and hordes of users for years have used these terms to refer a specific mindset. Do you want to edit project pages that use these terms, and infoboxes as well? What about users who identify themselves on their user pages as being one or the other? Do you go and ask them not to label themselves or others in this manner? Or talk to the news media to not refer to people by these terms anymore? [15]

Personally I believe the two terms are inaccurate, since there are more than two types of people on Wikipedia. I'll try to avoid using them and find something more appropriate when practical. Dream Focus 02:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A point

It is not unusual for blocked users to be able to edit only their talk page, in fact it's standard practice, regardless of whether there are discussions going on about them elsewhere. Copying content from here to AN/I is slightly unwieldy perhaps, but does work. pablo 12:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Its ridiculous whether its standard or not. I should be able to post on that page without any delay. The software could easily be changed to allow that page to be edited just as the talk page is edited. Dream Focus 12:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not ridiculous. Have you ever seen ANI or AN being hammered by IP socks of a blocked user? The problem is that the behaviour of some bad apples make it necessary to protect the project as a whole. Besides, there's no time limit to the process. Arguing that your "rights" (which you have none, by the way) are being violated by a delay is ridiculous. Indeed, seeing the content of some of your "defence", you're shooting yourself in the foot ... you'd be better off taking a moment or two to re-edit before asking someone to post it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think that giving blocked users automatic access to an administrator's noticeboard would go well, somehow. Don't forget that not every block is discussed there, usually (as in your case) only ones where the blocking admin invites review of their actions.
  You may find it ridiculous, but part of being blocked is that you lose the right to choose which pages you edit. pablo 12:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add an additional point that where you suggest the ANI thread is about you it is actually about the blocking admins actions. Of course your conduct is central, but technically it is not about you. I suggest you post a reasonable request to be unblocked and have the block removed by your own prudent actions. My76Strat (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I did post an unblock request. And a lot of what I'm seeing there seems to be about me. Dream Focus 12:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand and as I stated your conduct is central to the discussion. But you are in no peril of additional or harsher sanction. At worst the block stays as is or it is reduced or removed. So it can't get worse for you but it can improve. The most power is in your control. I am aware you have requested to be unblocked but unless you communicate some understanding of why your conduct contravenes policy and a desire not to repeat the acts, it really isn't reasonable to expect quarter. I respect if you hold your views so strongly that you refuse to retreat, but from such a stance, you may as well take the block in stride. You can be much more beneficial to ARS by editing and avoiding a site ban, but currently you seem content to martyr yourself. I'm not the most vocal or active member of ARS but I am a member and I have saved a couple articles. I'd like to save you the anguish of being party to an ArbCom case but honestly you may be placing yourself on a fast track. Chill out just a bit and remain a factor. My76Strat (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the best ways to get yourself out of a hole is to stop digging. Every reply you make to someone's support is so poorly thought out, you're digging yourself deeper. Read WP:GAB. Start to understand the actual reason for your block which has nothing to do with ARS, it has to do with your behaviour (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And yet several others brought up the ARS first, and continue to discuss it. And some of those who want me blocked have criticized the ARS and myself previously. So I do believe that might be part of all of this. As for the reason, I asked them already, if the word "evil" was replaced by "bad" would that eliminate the problem? Dream Focus 13:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* Your membership in ARS is only being brought up because you've become fanatical about it. Your use of "evil" when it comes to referring to other editors is a personal attack. You seem to believe that WP:BATTLE is the right way to get things done. Until you stop, admit that NPA and BATTLE are wrong, and take a look at your interaction style, you're going to be in trouble. Indeed, because you have repeated the attacks, I personally believe you should be indeffed until your behaviour changes: it can't change until you see that there's a right way and a wrong way of "saving" articles - commenting on the contributor(s) is the wrong way. Calling people "evil" is the wrong way. The fricking reality is that not all articles belong on Wikipedia yet. Some can be salvaged. Others should temporarily die until someone has the time to properly re-write them. This does not make people evil, it makes them rational. "Bad" and "evil" are still commentary about the contributor, not the contribution (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Temporarily die?" Things that are really bad can be stubbed. Sure AfD is a worth-while process, but it is unquestionable that stuff gets wrongly deleted (although less so than CSD and Prod), there are even academic papers on that. We are not now in the situation we were in when AfD was created, where we are looking at a mean time between re-creation of worthwhile articles of a couple of months, but in the process of filling in fourth order articles which probably have an MTBR of at least 5-10 years. Therefore the old "delete it, if it's important someone will re-create it" argument is no longer valid. Rich Farmbrough, 11:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC).

You bring up an interesting point. Based on the two or three times I've scanned through the articles on WP:PRODLIST, I've found several articles that easily meet GNG or subject guidelines up for PROD because they weren't sourced. I just found a couple professional athletes up for BLPProd and easily sourced them. If we're talking about deleting articles on notable topics, I'd say that Afd is far from the worst offender. Dream Focus, maybe you should get involved patrolling the PROD lists in addition to Afd? You might find that you have more success there. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ta-dah! Great idea. As long as PROD's are fixed in a calm, respectful manner without name-calling and all within policy, it's probably an excellent way to make a big difference on the project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot of things I deprodded in the past get sent to AFD anyway. Things aren't obviously hoaxes, vanity pages, spam, or gibberish usually shouldn't be prodded since its the same as nominating it for deletion only far less likely someone will notice and take the time to comment on it. 517 articles are tagged for prodded now. [16] That's more than get sent to AFD and no way anyone could look through all of them. Perhaps all articles of a certain type could be nominated for AFD in batches. Those on the various watchlist [17] for AFDS should be contacted when there are prods of articles they'd normally get notice of if it was sent to AFD. Since I'm still blocked right now, someone else will have to suggest that on the Wikipedia:Bot requests. All prods should have the "Google, News, books, scholar" search thing appear on them so its just one click to search for sources. Dream Focus 17:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts. If you work on BLP Prods there probably is less of a chance that someone will send it to deletion once it is sourced, particularly if you check to see if they meet subject guidelines first. In less than an hour I just sourced two articles on Pro Athletes and one on a host of a CW TV show (and I was reading something else most of the hour). Mark Arsten (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A person can do a lot of good patrolling the PROD categories and rescuing obviously notable articles. It's a fairly low-drama way to prevent unnecessary deletions as long as you're sensible about it and only rescue what you're willing to source. I do it myself occasionally. 28bytes (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Request to copy things over to the discussion at the indicated places

{{adminhelp}} Someone please copy to this to the proper area under Reyk's comment.

• In response to "Reyk YO! 21:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)" I see plenty of people who have been against me in many AFDs support my user page when it went up for deletion both times, as well as strangers. Its not just friends rushing to support me. There is no "support group" where we all rush to defend one another. I do however find that certain editors who have been against me at times in the past, always show up to take another jab. You mention TTN being banned, and he was in fact the definition of an evil deletionist, one that mindlessly went around mass nominating things he didn't like, such as the entire first season episode of the show M.A.S.H, ignoring consensus against mergers [18], and arguing constantly that consensus meant that even when most people were against his viewpoint, it didn't matter, because he was always right, and even canvasing on a WikiProject he knew his friends were at to get help outnumbering an "inclusionist" who noticed what he was doing. [19] He even stated on his talk page that he'd target the articles that got less views first, and keep picking them off, to drive editors away, and then take on the bigger articles after that. [20] Can we agree that calling these actions wrong or "evil" is justified? Note that not everyone who says "delete" at an AFD is an evil deletionists, nor even a deletionist at all. If you ever see someone say "just because it meets the requirements for WP:GNG doesn't mean we should have an article on it", then that's an evil deletionist. Someone who says basically they want the article dead, simply because they don't like it. I guess we need a more specific term to be invented to refer to the bad deletionists if some people are sincerely confused and bothered by my wording. Dream Focus 22:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone please add this to the response of "MSJapan (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)". Also, why not let me be unblocked to comment there, if I agree not to post anywhere else? Seriously now, this is ridiculous people can say things without me easily being able to respond.

"is an assertion that all material added to Wikipedia is valid". I have not said that, ever. You are taking my words out of context. What I said was No matter how many articles we saved, another hundred or so are destroyed each day.[49] No telling how many of them were valid articles, and just needed someone with an open mind, and the will to actually look for sources instead of just mindlessly spouting their deletionist rhetoric and seeking to destroy what others had labored to create. I am of course commenting on the fact that many articles the Article Rescue Squadron saved were originally going to be deleted, before someone showed up and took the time to search for references in Google news and other sources. Since I have voted delete on things in the past, and even nominated a few at times, I'm not against all deletions. Just the ones made for the wrong reasons, or by people who don't follow WP:BEFORE. Dream Focus 23:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Goodvac (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I emailed Jclemens to ask if he'd lift the block until this was settled, if I didn't edit except at the ANI. Not really fair otherwise. Dream Focus 23:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please someone copy this to the end after 86.174.213.12 bit.

• An IP address with no other edits but in this ANI, mentions something said back in 29 October 2010 which they happen to have recalled, having surely been around at that time. Log in and use your proper Wikipedia user name please. And Warden nominated something he saw as violating the rules of being a guide, he didn't just nominate it because he didn't like it. Do those with a problem with the word evil live in countries other than America? Is it used differently there? The word "evil" is defined as [21] "arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct" and "disagreeable". So I think it fits well here. Dream Focus 00:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Had to get off the internet earlier, do to severe storm, and threats of lightning surges to my tiny little house atop a too often lightning struck hill. Anyway.... someone copy this over please.

• The blocking administrator said I'm being blocked because on the talk page of the recently destroyed Article Rescue Squadron[22], I said "Anyway, it doesn't matter now since the evil hordes of deletionists seemed to have finally done us in." in a rather jokingly manner. There was no warning whatsoever. The blocking administrator then opens up a discussion on ANI immediately after blocking me, having a discussion about me in which I can not properly participate in. While many see the humor, others don't get it, and I'm trying to work out the reason for that, and if it really matters if the word "evil" is replaced by something that means the exact same thing. Refer to them as "bad" deletionists perhaps. It does not create a battleground mentality, since nothing I post on my user page is going to change how people act in AFDs. I have kept my over the top humorous bits on my user page only, with the exception of my last minor bit on the ARS talk page, and off of AFDs and any discussion pages. So I don't really see a problem here. If I had used the word "bad" instead of "evil" would Jclemens have impulsively banned me? Dream Focus 08:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Y Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please someone copy this next bit after MSJapan (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC) so I can respond to him.

MSJapan, you state that "a hundred articles a day destroyed" is inappropriate. But when I click on AFD [23] I see 124 results for one day, and the other recent days over 90. So yes, we do end up with about hundred articles a day destroyed/deleted. That is what happens. And I honestly doubt all of them deserve to be deleted. For years now this has continued. Does anyone have any stats as to exactly how many hundreds of thousands or millions of articles have been deleted? The Article Rescue Squadron did a fairly good job of identifying decent articles that should be saved, and helping bring them to the attention of those willing to search for references and help save them. I have the right to state my opinions on that on my user page. And I'm not putting everyone into two groups of course. Evil/bad deletionists are the ones I'm up against, not everyone who says delete in AFDs. Dream Focus 08:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Y Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please someone post this in response to Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2012

• Excuse me. I should've said "are nominated each day". Most of them do get deleted I believe. It changes from day to day, so can't really be certain. I have no idea how many articles have been eliminated by deletion or replaced by a redirect. Perhaps not millions. I didn't bother to do the math. Bad math skills is not a reason to block someone. And I didn't say they should have all been saved, I said there is no telling how many should've been. Its far too easy to nominate mass numbers of articles for deletion, and far too easy for someone to go around and do what the nominator should've done if they had followed WP:BEFORE. Dream Focus 12:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Y Done Dream, I suspect the only way youre going to get unblocked is if you make a request conceding that using the phrase "evil deletionists" was unwise and undertake to try not to use similar language again. Ive probably used just as unwise language myself, but on reflection it does seem to make sense that some deletionists might be upset by the term. Admittedly, "evil deletionist" is often used in a joking way, even at the TfD by one of the delete voters. Clemens was certainly misusing the tools by blocking you without warning first. Sadly though the deletionist mindset seems too strong for reason to prevail a this point in time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Feyd - do you really imagine this is about some "deletionists" getting upset? It's about Dream Focus's battleground us v them attitude - which you appear to encourage, enable, excuse, and share. pablo 13:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point Pablo, there's two sides to this so one could argue its doubly unwise. The phrase risks inflaming battle if it hurts deletionists feelings. The flip side, which I didnt refer to, is that it may inflame passions on the inclusionist side. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Mmm. And then there's everybody else (the majority of editors, perhaps) who don't define themselves using these narrow terms. pablo 14:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite right. And when they give their anti-conflict advice just to inclusionists and saying nothing to deletionists, they deserve exactly the same consideration as those "peace lovers" who advise victims "not to struggle" to avoid getting hurt. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I just typed out a long add on to this, talking about reason and conflict, which I was going to post on your talk as didnt want to clutter Dream's. Then I saw your edit notice about not likeing existing conversations to stray onto your talk. Just dont want you to think I meant that last reply in a nasty way. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, if you want to move it over there Feyd, you have a point about it perhaps being a little out of place here. pablo 14:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I asked if I said "bad" instead of "evil" would that be fine? I gave examples of bad deletionists, and clarified not all people who said delete were evil/bad. Waiting for a response on that. Dream Focus 13:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Evil deletionists" are evil by definition, my friends. Non-evil deletionists are not. I recall one AfD where I said "Tarc and Jack (Merridew) put the "evil" in "evil deletionist" ". Oh, when we all had some more balls. LOL. Oh where oh where were the blockers when we were referred to as the "Inclusionist Taliban"? Letting us get the shit kicked out of us, that's where.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Milo, you work hard at improving articles. Does the conflict and drama spur you on, or distract you? Do you enjoy it, as Dream Focus appears to? Do you need it? I suggest that none of us needs it. pablo 13:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Is there any conflict or drama in the AFDs caused by me at all? Other than people regularly taking swipes at the ARS, I didn't see any battleground problems at all in AFDs. Dream Focus 13:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes the conflict spurs me on, pablo. Generally I only watch it to the extent it entertains me. Wikipedia is no different than the rest of the internet in these things. It has always amused me that some editors regularly attack the ARS as if it has some evil purpose. The ARS is not always right, but its goal of preserving salvageable content whenever possible is laudable. Far too many times there are simply ignorant or lazy editors that nominate things for deletion that they don't even know are notable. And that damage is sometimes not reversed for many years (by article recreation), and reversing it requires effort that should not have been required. As to Dream, however, a block for saying "evil deletionists" is really quite silly. Its no Malleus "fucking cunt" situation.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Here's a question for you Dream Focus: why do you have to comment on other editors at all? Maybe it's ok to say "evil deletionist", maybe it's not. But is it necessary? Think about the things you enjoy doing on Wikipedia, voting at Afd and creating articles, what part of that requires you to evaluate or categorize other editors at all? Even if you are correct in your statements here, would it really limit your enjoyment of the project if you stopped using the word "deletionist" altogether? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  Wikipedia has articles, infoboxes, and help pages about deletionists, it an official term just as inclusionist is. Should the thousands of editors who use these terms stop doing it? Should it be removed from Wikipedia entirely? Dream Focus 09:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please post this in response to MASEM (t) 14:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Y Done pablo 15:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Everyone please look at that talk page discussion to see an example of a problem. No information is likely to be copied over from a "redirect". Masem states "But even if zero content was added to the County article, and this remained a redirect, no information is lost. It's within the open revision history any editor can get to." In cases where absolutely no information is copied over then the article is replaced by a redirect, it the same as deletion since most won't be likely to view it in that format. Wasn't thinking about that case when I complained about eliminating articles by delete or redirect. I was thinking of years ago when a certain editor went around replacing a rather large number of manga related articles with redirects and insisting things were "merged" when not one single thing was included in the other article. Anyway, do I have the right to complain as I did on that talk page, or is that a battleground mentality? Dream Focus 14:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please post this response to -MASEM (t) 15:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Y Done pablo 15:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus on the talk page. Different people stated opposite opinions. So, its consider a battleground mentality if anyone disagrees with you. Dream Focus 15:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please post this response to LindsayHello 19:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• "been advised, strongly, to remove the battleground mentality, but has declined to." Uh no, most people said it was fine. The few people I see complaining are the ones I see insulting the ARS constantly and arguing with me in AFDs. I broke no rules, and received no official warning for anything. Some people consider anyone posting their opinions about Wikipedia related matters "a battleground mentality" if they simply disagree with them on something. Dream Focus 20:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Y Done AniMate 21:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please post this response to Nobody Ent 22:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC) in response to his "Should DF be unblocked"

• Can you tell me EXACTLY what "appropriate behaviors" you are referring to? Don't be vague and expect me to somehow read your mind. I asked if I replaced the word "evil" with "bad" would that solve that problem? No one answered me on that. You need to be specific. Dream Focus 22:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Goodvac (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please post this response to AniMate 23:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• So those that disagree with me calling me a bad editor is fine, but I can't do the same to them? Can I say only bad editors nominate something for deletion without following WP:BEFORE and doing a quick Google news search? Can I say only bad editors nominate the same article for deletion more than once? Wouldn't taking something others have worked hard on and mindlessly destroying it calling it "junk", make someone a bad person? I'm not talking about articles that violate specific rules. I'm referring to people who seek to destroy something simply because they don't like it. That seems pretty evil to me. But, once again, this is only on my userpage, I don't call anyone out by name, posting on their talk page, or mentioning how wicked their actions are in an uncivil manner during AFDS or article talk pages. You can't censor how people think, and I see no reason for any obviously fake and forced smiles. Dream Focus 23:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Y Done Reyk _YO! 02:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please post this reply to My76Strat (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:No personal attacks isn't valid here. I'm not targeting anyone personally. I am not attacking all deletionists either. I'm am complaining about specific Wikipedia related problems. And this [24] bit on my user page, with the edit summary "The barbarian hordes have overwhelmed us at last! Civilization is surely doomed." is clearly done in a joking manner as most clearly understood. Dream Focus 23:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Y Done Reyk _YO! 02:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please post this in response to MBisanz talk 00:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• What processes am I disrupting? Can you link to one example of this? Dream Focus 00:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Y Done Reyk _YO! 02:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone please post this in response to ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I do see that some people are sincere in not seeing any humor there and thus bothered by it. I can reword things, it isn't a problem. I tried editing my user page already, but the block prevents me from doing that. I asked specifically what people were bothered by and examples. Dream Focus 02:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Y Done Reyk _YO! 02:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please post this in response to MBisanz talk 06:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• You link to a place where I made a simple mistake, got reverted, and didn't pursue the matter farther. Have you never made a mistake before? Is that a reason to block someone? The second link shows me responding to someone who is accusing a certain editor of messing with the Rescue Squadron by tagging something the editor complained doesn't believe should be tagged, and I mention a previous article the person in question had tagged to mess with us about zoophillia vegetarianism or something. I don't remember its exact name. I then make the joke I already explained, which most people commented on say was clearly humor, "Anyway, it doesn't matter now since the evil hordes of deletionists seemed to have finally done us in." since the ARS had been deleted anyway. Your third link makes no sense at all. What are you complaining about here? [25] You then link to an AFD where I, among others, thought all rumors covered in reliable news sources about Sesame Street should be in a separate article, while some felt they should be included in the existing character articles themselves, or not be featured at all.[26] Are you trying to have me blocked because you disagree with my stance on things? The next link is something I already said I regretted saying, "mindlessly deletionist drones", I was just stunned at the time that someone whose well reviewed music is heard by millions and who has a detailed interview easily found about him in a reliable source, got deleted. I offered ample links and rational as to why the article was clearly notable, which it of course is. I'll bring that to deletion review once this block is lifted. Dream Focus 09:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done pablo 09:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please post this in response to Spartaz Humbug! 11:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• As many have already stated, there was no legitimate reason to block me. Apparently no one else has even been blocked like this, a full week, without warning. So why is it continuing? I already stated I would reword things on my user page. A proper conversation could've been done making this entire thing unnecessary. There is no valid reason to continue this ridiculous block. Some are mentioning the ARS and inclusionist and even linking to AFD and whatnot where I dared to disagree with them, as a reason for them to want to block me. But that isn't a valid reason to block anyone. Dream Focus 12:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I won't do it as doing so will probably be the proverbial final nail in the coffin. I've recommended you stop responding to everything. You're not doing yourself favours, and are now dug deeper than ever before. Because you fail to understand the reason behind the block, it's quite likely to become extended to indefinite. If you put half as much energy into that as you have responding poorly to others critique, you probably would be unblocked by now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about your opinions. I did nothing warranting a block, and I will not let others act as though I did. If people have ego problems keeping them from admitting they were wrong and unblocking me, then they shouldn't be allowed to have any position of power to begin with. Dream Focus 12:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Pardon my language, but that's bullshit and you know it. There's an entire ANI thread that proves your WP:BATTLE mentality, and you continue to say that you should be permitted to call groups of people either "evil" or "bad". As many times as it's been shown to you, you're still arguing you did nothing to deserve a block. What planet are you on? You are rightly blocked to protect this project from your attitude towards "deletionists" and your surrounding behaviour. You cannot be unblocked until you understand that, and THEN prove to the community that it will not ever happen again. This is not fuckling rocket-science here, and your absolute waste of the community's time by playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is truly burning what could otherwise be everybody's (including you) useful time actually improving the project. Right now the project is improved by your being blocked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, what you are saying is bullshit, which hopefully one day you will realize. I have the right to complain about Wikipedia things, no rule was violated. People complain about inclusionists all the time, I don't see anyone bothering them. You can't block people because how they think. A bit of rewording on my user page is all that is going to happen. I'm not going to stop complaining about how things are done and suggesting improvements. Dream Focus 12:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done pablo 12:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC) I've done this. But I really think you would benefit from listening to what others are telling you . pablo 12:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Most are saying there was no valid reason to block me. I listen to people that said otherwise, and the reason for people wanting me blocked is because of how I worded certain things, or they just don't like anyone disagreeing with them in AFD and elsewhere. Dream Focus 12:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please post this response to Nobody Ent 12:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I do limit all AFD discussions to the articles being discussed. I have the right on my own user page however to list changes in Wikipedia I find troublesome, and how I think things should be done. I just need to change the wording here and there, to avoid any misunderstanding. If I want to complain about drive-by tagging, people rudely referring to things they don't like as fancruft or junk, people arguing that something should be deleted simply because they don't like it and believe it makes Wikipedia look bad to have articles that some might not take seriously, or other Wikipedia related things, I have the right to do so. Dream Focus 12:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Y DoneNobody Ent 13:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

suggestion

Hi, sorry to see your blocked. I just wanted to good faith suggest to you a couple of ways to freshen up and perhaps might help you move forward in a new way and might show a strong commitment to having understood the comments at ani - request deletion or blanking of your userpage. There are a fair few users that object to it and its already been nominated twice for deletion, so there are clearly good faith issue with what your hosting there. I would also freshen suggest fresh up your talkpage - its long and large, three hundred and sixty five thousand bytes (any article talkpage would have been trimmed long ago) and some of it is dated three years old - archive your talkpage also, letting go of the past and starting afresh - . Youreallycan 21:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll edit my user page as appropriate when the block is over, as I have stated I would. I'm not going to have it totally deleted of course, since I see no reason for that. Dream Focus 21:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Note, I hadn't noticed how large my talk page was. I checked and I can't edit my archive subpages while I'm blocked so that'll have to wait as well. I put things into proper categories so its easier to find things. Dream Focus 22:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed, make an effort to show that from now on you will comment on content and not on other editors and all of this will blow over. A good first step would be deleting the user page. N^oformation ^Talk 21:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@DF - I will blank your user page for you if you request it. The whole lot is troublesome - let it go. I would go back to ANI and request your unblocking if you let go of it. Youreallycan 21:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No. I doubt anyone would find 100% of my user page bothersome at all. I'll edit things that people believe target people, instead of just complaining about policies. Dream Focus 22:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I noticed you changed your post after I read it adding a bit about it being nominated for deletion before. Read those debate please. [27] 14 said keep, with only one person agreeing with the nominator to delete saying "Reluctant delete", so it ended in keep. Dream Focus 22:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• The second AFD was about one thing that we worked out, when people explained things properly, and I removed. The closing administrator said "Editors should feel free to raise concerns with specific elements of the page with Dream Focus and pursue dispute resolution if there are disagreements over particular content." That sounds fine to me. After the block is over and I have time to edit things there, then anyone can write out what bothers them, if anything left does, and explain why, and we'll discuss it in a proper manner. Dream Focus 22:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(after another ec) - Yes, I got a bit of an edit conflict and just put it in after, excuse that I just thought its just a casual chat. I won't read the discussion as I don't see that historic del disc is helpful now. No worries, this was just a good faith suggestion as a possible way to move forward, we are all different and that is one of our strengths, so we need each other to bounce off and discuss with - good luck and best wishes to you. Youreallycan 22:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to archive your talk page now, and you can arrange things how you like when you get unblocked. Likewise I'll make any edits on your user page that you think would facilitate getting you unblocked. Nobody Ent 02:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Just leave it be. If people are in a hurry to see change, then they shouldn't be giving me an unprecedented week long block for poor communication skills on both sides. Dream Focus 02:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

DF, I just saw the discussion. Though there is no point in reopening it now, I wish you had gotten in touch with me before you became so involved; I am not sure I could have dealt with the other side, but I could have given you some advice that would have helped you explain things as you saw it.

For anyone looking here, I will give my opinion: first the TfD close was unambiguously wrong--there was clearly no consensus, though there should have been consensus to keep the template and continue the good work of the ARS, and there would have been had it not been attacked by a single minded group of deletionists taking unfair advantage of a few errors. . second what you said in the two postings originally complained of was just blowing off steam, and should have been regarded as harmless-- even Tarc said so. third the original block of you was just plain wrong , and there should have been quick agreement to reverse it. fourth, the discussion at ANI should not have been closed. But there is no point in focussing on getting justice done for the past, rather in getting justice done in the future--it's a much better investment. At the moment, the deletionists are losing support; we have to take care they don't win it again. This is best done by quietly working to improve and keep each defensible article, without raising unnecessary general issues, going article by article, and taking the worst but only the worst of the bad closes to deletion review. Success here comes to those who are calmer and more persistent. (I will admit that personally I find each aspect of this quite a strain at present). Please feel free to email me. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Would doing an unblock request make any difference at this point? Most were overwhelmingly against it to begin with. Dream Focus 16:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

ARS

I posted some thoughts here and here. What are your thoughts on these ideas for ARS?--v/r - TP 21:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If they were against it before, they'll be against it now. And you don't need to post anything telling the closing administrator there are now references in the article. You just list what the references are that prove notability, in the AFD like we always do, and they can look at that. Then they look at the standard responses of people insulting the references found.

• That's not enough coverage(things like computer software never get a full page review just a paragraph or two) since we measure things by number of words spent talking about something, not the content of those words themselves.
• Complain that even if its listed on the reliable sources noticeboard as a reliable source, they believe its a right/left wing publication, and thus it should not count as a reliable source
• State that a full page article about a writer/artist/sculptor/composer's latest work isn't mostly about them but their creation so doesn't count to their notability
• Insist that pointing to the official website for a television show that list that they did review a product on a certain episode, doesn't count towards notability since if you can't find the entire episode online somewhere, then you don't know if it was a long review or brief mention
• Insist that while coverage of the activities of a High School count as significant coverage for it, that the same sort of coverage for an Elementary School, A sheriff's department, a fire department, or others, does not count towards its notability.
• Mistakenly state that either the General Notability Guidelines or the secondary guidelines don't matter, that you need to meet both of them to prove yourself notability, then argue nonstop about that misconception.
• State that coverage showing a book was a bestseller doesn't count, nor is confirmed sales mentioned in reliable sources showing millions of copies of something were sold, because those are just "big numbers".

Sometimes you get legitimate complaints/concerns about references found, but usually its just one of those that I listed. Dream Focus 22:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

So maybe a new essay might help too? Something like Poor arguments against sources and explain why they are invalid arguments. I'm actually in agreement with many of the things you've said.--v/r - TP 01:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Oddcast (company)

A tag has been placed on Oddcast (company), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bazj (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Dream, the above, as I posted at Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list#Oddcast_.28company.29, is VERY WRONG. It make me cringe, I know this is happening all too frequently on wikipedia. What can we do about it?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ask the guy who tags a sufficiently large number of articles for speedy deletion within a short period of time to take a moment to look at things more closely perhaps? Then check up on their record to see if they need to be taken to ANI? That might work. Lot of guys like that out there though, and its hard to sort through the many nominations to see which ones are valid and which ones are invalid. You need to show a regular pattern. Dream Focus 15:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"accusations"

I'm sorry that you interpreted my complaint as an accusation. I'm not trying to say anything bad about you, I'm just saying that you should tone down the inclusionist rhetoric around newcomers, since they don't realize that there's a whole spectrum of political opinion. Apparently I said something to upset you. It wasn't my intent, and I'd appreciate it if you could tell me what it was, so I can avoid it in the future. But if you don't want to, I guess that's your right. --NYKevin @898, i.e. 20:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to push an agenda. I just saw someone being rude to her in the AFD, and elsewhere, and I commented, saying what was on my mind as I always do. Its not rhetoric, its my blurting out whatever pops in my mind at the time. And people will have their own beliefs about this from the very start, very seldom anyone changing their minds, regardless of what anyone says to them. Some are what the Wikipedia defines as inclusionists, who say "hey, the actor is probably notable, or that television show gets watched by plenty of people, and its not hurting anyone to have articles for them", while others are deletionists who say" no, we don't want it on the Wikipedia for whatever reason, and we're going to try to get rid of all it". Dream Focus 20:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Volume I, Issue III February 2012 Front cover | Feature | News and announcements | Humor | Want ads To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

Mentioned at ANI

You have been mentioned in this discussion at ANI.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Peacebuilding

Hello, Dream Focus. You have new messages at Shooterwalker's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For whatever reason, what could have been a two person conversation about an article has become needlessly dramatic. Instead of making this about you and me, why not wait for the policy discussion to unfold at VPP. Like I said, if the community is behind you, then there's no need to bicker. I'll gladly admit if the consensus is against me here. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to take everything personally and think its all about you. Maybe you have an ego problem or a win-at-all-cost-mentality. I don't know. I honestly don't care. You are the one dragging this out all over the place. You bringing this to the village pump does seem like an attempt at canvassing to me. I clearly pointed out to you before you did that, that all Wikiprojects discuss redirects and mergers as well as deletes. Dream Focus 16:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The only thing personal is when you accused me of deleting stuff and ignoring consensus because I don't like it, which is completely untrue. I also let it go and offered to work with you. You're the one who escalated a two-person discussion to ARS. VPP is the legitimate forum for the kind of policy changes executed by NorthAmerica. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI

You been mentioned at ANI here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hey DF, I weighed in as well. Your comments are right on the mark. Now, let's go back to hating each other! All the best, Drmies (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Well said. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

ARS

Dream Focus - is it possible that ARS can appoint a contact or a noticeboard for specific concerns or complaints? What I mean is, if there is a perception of canvassing, can there be a place where it can be brought up with the ARS itself before going to ANI? Perhaps some of these concerns can be addressed by ARS before the entire community has to weigh in. What do you think? I think it would only be effective if the ARS were receptive to it and empathetic to the concerns. Thoughts?--v/r - TP 18:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Are the people whining and scheming receptive and empathetic to our concerns? They can post on the ARS talk page. And you can't accuse us of canvasing if different members have voted delete in some of the few recently added articles for consideration. I even said delete in one. Seriously, look it up. Can you find even one person that has said keep in every single thing listed? Dream Focus 18:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Besides Northamerica1000? I'm receptive, and I think a lot of people are, to the Article List. I think the recent ANI thread on that was a legitimate concern but didn't recognize that this was a more transparent way of dealing with that concern. I've spoken to several folks on WT:ARS about some of the issues. I think that folks feel 1) ARS isn't receptive, and 2) There is no where to go to complain. If we have a couple of folks from the ARS who would hear out complaints and we could have some bi-lateral discussions on how both sides can have their concerns addressed. I think the real problem is ARS says "It must be done this way" and whatever you call my side says "No, it can't be done at all" and what we need to do is find a "How can we do this in a way that can't be abused?"--v/r - TP 18:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Step one, find proof that is actually being abused. You have hordes of determined people looking for every little thing to criticize in it, so if such proof existed, surely one of them would've found it. As far as people that don't like us, or certain people active in it, they will never be happy no matter what. Letting them get some token victory to feed their ego and satisfy their win at all cost mentality, is not something I plan on bothering with. Look at just how many articles go to AFD each day. No one person can possibly go through all of them. Surely they can find some to participate in that won't involve any of us. Dream Focus 18:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think part of the key to the success of this is dealing with the perceptions as well as reality. As I am sure you know, perception is reality for some. So if you ignore the perception, folks are going to feel like you are ignoring the problem. What needs to happen is folks can present what they perceive to be happening and the ARS can look into it and say "Well, that's not exactly what is happening because...but maybe we can make that more clear by..." or "You're right, so we'll fix it by..." Do you get what I mean?--v/r - TP 19:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem. If they can't find any proof to back up their ridiculous claim then we can ignore them. These people have constantly been asked to show evidence of their imagined claim. There is no way to convince them of what they choose not to believe. Most people have enough sense to see the truth, so the few editors that refuse to aren't really relevant here. We might have some harassing us on the ARS Wikiproject page or elsewhere at times, but recently that hasn't been any real problem. There have been editors and groups of editors at times over the years who have gone to the talk page of the ARS and had long drawn out arguments that extended for several pages and over a significant period of time. No one is keeping them from doing so again. Dream Focus 23:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, you need to combat the perception. If you ignore it, it'll get worse and it has gotten worse. Besides, I gave evidence of a particular user and it was dismissed. I'm talking about open dialogue between ARS opponents and the ARS itself. If you're not receptive to all concerns and willing to talk about them, then there isn't a point. When you hold a stick that you can wave and dismiss whatever you don't feel like addressing, you are closing the line of communication and it's not going to be used. When I have hard evidence, why would I bring that to ARS? Folks want to talk, be open to their concerns. Something ARS is doing is causing the perception. It didn't materialize out of thin air. That needs to be discovered.--v/r - TP 02:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"When I have hard evidence, why would I bring that to ARS?" What? You bring it wherever you want. But if you see an actual problem, discuss it on the talk page for the Wikiproject. I don't own the ARS. No one owns or controls any of the Wikiprojects. Stop bugging me with this nonsense. Go to the ARS talk page and discuss whatever imagined/perceived problems you think exist there. Dream Focus 02:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I bug you because your the most vocal voice and there is no doubt that you have a significant influence in the ARS but if this isn't going anywhere then I'll bugger off.--v/r - TP 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User page concerns

I see you have made some good effort to accommodate concerns about your user page, but I have other objections. For one, the term "elitist" is really just as offensive as terms like "snotty" so I think this section should be seriously amended to remove terms like "elitist" and "snotty with "snob" being another that should be removed. Honestly, the section should probably be removed altogether, at least everything from the numbered list up, because even the parts that don't use such words strongly imply the insult. I think the part about the hurricane picture is a humorous and perfectly appropriate comment for a user page. Other occurences of those words should also be removed I think.

Another section is this one where I think the heading is the only serious issue so it should just be replaced with something else.

Furthermore I think this essentially reads like providing inclusionists a loophole in WP:CANVASS. Maybe just removing the comment "surely want to preserve" would suffice.

Those are the only issues I can think of at the moment, but another suggestion I would have is that you sort out some of this material. Currently your user page is about 214 KB of basically raw text and is not easily readable. You could create new subpages in your user space to accommodate the material.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In order of concerns. "snotty" and "snob" only refer to people they are trying to impress, not anyone here. Elitist is a legitimate term for people, since I don't know of any other which would work tehre, and doubt its offensive. I overlooked the amusing "Yet another decent legitimate article destroyed by the unreasonable vicious hordes of deletionists" one when I was censoring the rest of my user page. I'll rename that into something no one can complain about. I quote what the canvassing rule says, because it kept coming up regularly enough for me to comment on, and you really should let everyone who created or did a significant amount of work on an article know it is up for deletion so they can participate. There was a bot that we got made that was run for a short time, before it vanished for reasons unknown. Its rude to try to destroy someone's work without at least letting them have a say in the matter. Dream Focus 18:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

While understanding what you are saying about it being said in the policy the remark about "surely want to preserve" certainly does give the impression that you are only suggesting this as a sort of a loophole in WP:CANVASS that can help editors rack up keep votes. Hence why I suggested that you remove that particular remark.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No. I clearly indicate after it (by working on the article's issue. Articles are kept based on the merit of the arguments in the AFD, not by the number of people voting keep. The more people that show up who are willing to try to fix any problems that may exist, instead of simply calling it by disparaging names as unfortunately happens from time to time, the better. Dream Focus 05:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your edit at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

There is some confusion at the relevant talk page as to what you meant by this edit. I interpret your edit summary ("no need to repeat word for word what is at the top of the page") as meaning that you were eliminating an unnecessary redundancy, but another editor is interpreting it to mean that the redundant text (about significant coverage) was removed because it does not apply to nonprofit organizations. Your input at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Question about WP:NONPROFIT would be appreciated. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I explained it well. "no need to repeat word for word what is at the top of the page" was in my edit summary. The very first two sentences on the article are being copied over to another section for no real reason at all. I went ahead and explain on the talk page also. Secondary guidelines exist to show some things are notable even if they don't meet the primary guideline at WP:GNG. Dream Focus 03:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Template:Rescue. Thank you. Mtking ^(edits) 00:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that I consider it completely inappropriate to remove the CSD tag from Template:Rescue Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that no one cares what you think about that, Purplebackpack.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. No one cares Purpleback. You are responding to something I did last week [28] before this went to a proper discussion, which is still open at [29] Stop edit warring until the issue has been resolved there. Dream Focus 07:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The articles "Religious coercion" and "Religious coercion in Israel" have been renominated for deletion

Dear Dream Focus, I just wanted to let you know that an AfD, in which you participated in recently has been reopened. Please express your opinion again in the current AfD. Thank you. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Doctors Medical Center and Seton Medical Center

Good afternoon, I am trying to have these added to DYK and improve and expand them. I was wondering if I could get some feedback or peer review from you?LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

One has 1,100 people working at it. Both medical facilities are automatically notable because of their size. Good work. Dream Focus 22:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that Seton that has 1,100 employees? Thanks man.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

They are also over 5 days old and unlikely to be 5x more expandable, so DYK is kinda unlikely for them.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

But I just created them and nominated them before that expired. I think they are grandfathered in while the necessary upgrades are made no?LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: A brief note

Hello, Dream Focus. You have new messages at Marie Helweg-Larsen's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Last of the Greats article

		The Comics Star
		Thanks for creating the The Last of the Greats article, and improving Wikipedia's coverage of notable comic books. Your efforts to improve the encyclopedia for the public are appreciated. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)