User talk:Dream Focus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Archives
Hight Requirement.svg Dream Focus
Crime.svg Conflicts
Sinnbild Wanderer.svg Interaction with others
Bilateral discussions
storage
Aiga toiletsq men inv.svg Whoops.
Barnstars, kittens, cookies, and holiday greetings
Hase mit Ostereiern (2).jpg This user believes in the power of the Easter Bunny.
Cavities evolution 5 of 5 ArtLibre jnl.png This user would like to remind you to always brush your teeth, so you don't get severe cavities as I have.
KemetismSymbol.PNG This user greatly enjoyed the Ultima series up to Ultima 7(downhill from there).
Smiley.svg Articles I created which no one successfully managed to delete
Smiley.svg Articles I find of interest
There are 4,567,945 articles on the English Wikipedia. Many of them deserve to be here, and I hope to save all of those.
Smiley.svg This user has made over 26,569 edits on Wikipedia.
Smiley.svg This user has made over 60,000 edits on Wikia.
incl This user is an inclusionist.
Gnome-help-browser.svg This user rescues articles for the Article Rescue Squadron.
Noia 64 apps karm.svg This user has been on Wikipedia for 8 years and 10 days.

Contents

Dream Focus Talk Page

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


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)

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 time 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 NobodyMy talk 05:47, 30 January 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!--Milowenttalkblp-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)


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)

Wow! Cool rabbit!

Thanks for doing the detective work to find the editnotice page. Now I will not forget again. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Just came here to thank you for the editnotice and it seems you have one yourself. Coolio. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Saw your note about this on the Colonel's page and have made on for myself. Thanks again for sharing this important knowledge! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Whoops! I forgot to tell you. I was trying to think, who to tell, and who might not want to be bothered. It can be put on any page at all. Dream Focus 13:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, FYI, it only works on each editor's own user and user talk page. I saw this posted on your user page and was surprised that any editor could apparently create an editnotice for any article; after looking into it, I was relieved to find that that's not the case. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


ARS Guide to saving articles

Sunday will arrive

Hi Dream. I got impressed for the polemic produced in that debate, and seemed very, very unlikely the deletion of the article. In cases like that is it not obvious that any article should be kept? How is possible one admin taking that final decision? It is clear that a neutral committee should decide that. It seems pretty much a contestable act over there, therefore a clear case to the Deletion review. My main problem is finding time to all this, however I will be there if you or some else do the request. By the way, thanks for all; you are a true knight. Excalibursword (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm busy with other things in life and don't have time for a long drawn out debate I don't think will go anywhere. The people that put that area on their watchlist and show up regularly usually side with the deletionist mentality. Dream Focus 14:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes the fight is more important than the victory or defeat.
Dream Focus, you did a lot and well. We fight every day of our lives, keep in mind fighting to right principles (as you done over there), then you and all will be always winning. Barnstars are interesting but here is a more useful tool to you. Excalibursword (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a battleground.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Not a battleground, just a place were opposing camps see who can argue the longest at the guideline pages to get things their way, and use the results to justify elimination types of articles they don't like. A place where people arguing nonstop at AFDs over whether articles should be kept or deleted, people seldom agreeing with one another or convince of someone else's viewpoint at all, locked into what they believe at first, and refusing to budge from it. Dream Focus 19:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


October 2012

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Talk:Before Watchmen. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. pbp 22:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You ignore my question by accusing me of making a personal attack. Don't dodge the question with nonsense. I've responded at the proper location. [2] Dream Focus 22:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I'm gonna keep ignoring your question, here OR there. Besides, an article talk page isn't where you have a dispute with another editor pbp 22:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
It is when you bring it to that location. Dream Focus 22:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
No it isn't. You're turning that discussion into a battleground, repeating the same practices that have thrice gotten you blocked before. I don't have to explain to you why I chose to comment in a particular page. EVER. pbp 03:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
You know what you did, and you know it was wrong. You keep trying to change the subject to something to totally unrelated. In 2009 I was blocked for 24 hours for undoing vandalism and violating the 3 revert rule by mistake. In 2009 I was blocked for a simple mistake on a talk page, for 12 hours, which meant when I logged back in the next morning and saw it, it was over already, too late to protest. The third time I was blocked was earlier this year in something that many administrators in the discussion about agreed was inappropriately done. No possible reason to be bringing that up in this case now, other than to try to distract from the rule you violated. Dream Focus 08:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Your DRV

Kudos for having the guts of putting List of pedophiles for DRV. Your arguments make lots of sense. It's too bad that looks like the mix of BLP paranoia and deletionism trumps everything else again. --Cyclopiatalk 01:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, I nominated you to receive a t-shirt! Keep on the good work. --Cyclopiatalk 20:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Dream, I just saw that you took that to DRV, and also commend you for having the balls to do so. When that was on for speedy deletion I had removed the tag and suggested it needed to go to AFD, but it was deleted soon afterwards anyway. See User_talk:The_Devil's_Advocate#List_of_pedophiles. I am very uncomfortable about any actions we take that appear to provide comfort to pedophiles. How can pedophiles deserve a pass when a List of convicted war criminals does not? I don't understand how this was speedy material.--Milowenthasspoken 14:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Food for thought

When there are that many people piling up on the other side of an issue, it's useful to contemplate what that means, I have found. It might have been better to let this one go, I think. Herostratus (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It means many people will look at a title and not bother thinking things through before making a decision. Or will actually believe some nonsense about Google caching something and it on the internet forever, destroying people's lives? Ridiculous. Dream Focus 20:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
So I gather you didn't learn anything from this. That's too bad. I make mistakes -- we all do, I guess, except maybe you -- and contemplating them helps me to learn and grow. Oh well. Herostratus (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I made no mistake in this. I used logic to try to reason with people, while they simply refused to think things through, and thus one more perfectly valid article is lost to Wikipedia this day. Dream Focus 00:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I kind of resent that comment. I'm logical. I'm intelligent. I think things through. I've thought about this kind of thing for a long time and have a fully formed and internally consistent view the matter. So just maybe there's something else in play here. Herostratus (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you are in denial. Others have gone there and agreed with my reasoning. A simple name change would've solved all problems. If its fine as a category, no reason why it wouldn't be as a list. Only those convicted of the crime would be on the list. Google does not store a permanent copy of anything, the cache updated regularly, so that concern ridiculous. And if vandalism ever was an actual problem, semi-protection could be placed there to stop new users from editing it. Please go there to debate these issues on the proper page if you can come up with a logical reason why it'd be a problem. Dream Focus 06:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Use of Rescue List template in its own TfD

Surprise, surprise, I consider it highly inappropriate that you tagged Rescue list for Rescue. You used an article rescue template on another template. The tag is supposed to be used to incite improvement of articles; but you're just using it to get all the ARS members to vote "keep" just as you did with Template:Rescue and articles. (PS: go ahead and take me to ANI for all I care. You'll just get a boomerang, and notify all the mops who are upset about ARS being a drama sink that you guys are up to no good) pbp 18:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You are talking even crazier than usual today. I responded to your nonsense elsewhere. [3] Keep the discussion there or in the ridiculous deletion discussion you started for this matter. [4] Dream Focus 19:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
It ain't nonsense, it ain't ridiculous. It's a carbon-copy of a SALTed template; it's being used for the same nefarious purposes as the SALTed template was. You just proved that by using it in the TfD, when the template (and the list) are just for articles. Frankly, with your record, you should be indef blocked for such ridiculousness. And if you think I should, start the dang ANI thread already. pbp 19:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Is this going to be one of those things where you just drag things out all over the place for as long as possible? It does not have any "nefarious" purpose, its just the same exact thing all Wikiprojects have, to inform people at AFDs that their Wikiproject was notified about the discussion. And its not the same template. The template deleted was this massive thing, complete with a picture and a paragraph of text, that was placed on the article itself, not the AFD debate. Dream Focus 19:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. pbp 19:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello! It appears you are as confused as ever. If you nominate a template that a Wikiproject uses for deletion, people in that Wikiproject must be told. Its not canvassing, its common sense. Dream Focus 20:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Point to the policy that says so (which, FYI, doesn't exist). Until then, I maintain that the template was misused. It's for articles only, not for templates. If you don't like that it's being deleted, whine to some mop about it. Oh, and while your at it, tell yo boy CallawayRox to stop NPAing me. pbp 20:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not concerned since I know it won't be deleted. All Wikiprojects have them so we're fine. And why would they write a policy just to tell people like you something so obvious you should automatically know it to begin with? How young are you exactly? I'm guessing between 11 and 14. Dream Focus 20:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. pbp 20:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I love how pbp "templated a regular" two times above. There's no finer example of good faith editing, is there?--Milowenthasspoken 23:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • He/she did it on my talk page too, in response to my listing the template on the ARS list. Rather than debate whether or not what I did was canvasing, I simply deleted the section from my page. Please leave a message in my sandbox if you can inform me that my posting of the template was canvasing or not. —Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC) (I meant to sign that!) - ʈucoxn\talk 20:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Chicken Kiev speech

RE: Chicken Kiev speech

[5]

On the cusp of another award to added to your sizeable collection of awards.

Thank you man. Spoildead (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

ARS

Just a quick note to express my appreciation on your comments regarding what I view as a coordinated attack on ARS. Keep it up. Faustus37 (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

As opposed to the more common coordinated attack by ARS? What nonsense this entire palaver is. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
There are no coordinated attacks. You don't see anyone joining in some AFDs tagged for rescue, and when someone does join its never that many people, and they don't always say to keep things either. Dream Focus 15:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Dream Focus. You have new messages at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Chicken_Kiev_speech.
Message added 06:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You have mail!

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Dream Focus. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Regarding a t-shirt nomination :) Jalexander--WMF 02:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool! I won a t-shirt. Dream Focus 02:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Article Rescue Squadron and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

We already did this at [6] last month, and elsewhere as you well know. WP:STICK Dream Focus 00:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration case declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 16:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreamship

..has been closed, and not as keep. You know why? Because you were too busy accusing me of WikiHounding to even bother to a) vote, or b) improve the article. Let that be a lesson to you: if you weren't so busy trying to start shit with me, that article might still be around pbp 01:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't bother with that article, since I only found one reliable source, and you need two to convince people to keep it. I just deprodded it because of the one source I found. And are you trying to teach me a lesson? You believe someone was trying to start shit with you, so you went and nominated an article for deletion that he had just deprodded? Odd you'd manage to find your way there if you weren't following my contributions, which is of course wikihounding, and against the rules. Dream Focus 02:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Dream Focus. You have new messages at Purplebackpack89's talk page.
Message added 18:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

pbp 18:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


Dude...

  • Seriously, you really have to start cleaning up your talk page... takes me something like 10 seconds to load instead of my usual almost nada speed. Anyway, you're better suited to talk some sense into that Nbanato guy as he seems to be fixated on some POV issues on the article page of Steve Jobs (as evident in him having been involved in a couple of edit-warring incidents and receiving numerous advices/warnings), while I'm just sick of people who deliberately remove an entire section without first consulting with others even though it is well referenced and certain clues were made elsewhere (such as the lead section!). Okay, I'm out of here, need to get some sleep here in my part of the world. Cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
    Its so only the most determined will post here. No, seriously, I had no idea, since my internet is fast enough things load up instantly. I thought everyone had DSL or higher these days. I'm archiving some chunks of it now. Dream Focus 20:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • My bad, wasn't entirely your fault but WP's server (located in Florida, Eastern Seaboard) can be rather annoying for users like us in the Far East, especially when one's page is in desperate need of cleanups and archiving... I'm guilty of that sometimes. Anyway, I really have no idea why that chap seems so hellbent on having his way on the article page of Steve Jobs. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek

What part of "unsourced fancruft" is everyone failing to grasp here? An article that long should not have only four sources. And where is the out of universe notability? I'm not seeing it. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

If you see something that needs sources to prove the statement is true, you tag it. You do NOT just toss out dozens of citation needed tags all over the place, where they don't belong. If the paragraph mentions what episode or book the information is from, there is no need to repeat that in a reference. And calling something "fancruft" just shows your reason for trying to delete it was that you just don't like it. How many times have you had everyone else against you trying to delete something, and you still don't get it? Dream Focus 19:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


Wow, another HOUNDing accusations

This is what, the fourth you've levied against me? I believe I have asked you to steer clear of my talk page. Also, you know perfectly well that there are a helluvalot of ways to get to an AfD other than through your contributions, the AfD log being the most common. I've voted on 3 or 4 AfDs just today. You voted in an AfD I started within the last 24 hours, therefore there's really as much argument to be made that you're stalking me as I am you. In short, you need to stop the hounding accusations before I take you to ANI for disruption pbp 23:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You had no way of finding your way to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Violations_of_the_Ceasefire_of_21_November,_2012 other than following me, as you have done in the past. You don't go to that many AFDs, so its not likely to keep happening by chance. Dream Focus 23:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I mean lately, not total over the years he's been here. With all the AFDs open right now, what are the chances he'd just happen to show up in one I was in? Dream Focus 00:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Considering that you yourself have edited about 3500, they're not that long. The main point is that you've now accused me of stalking way too many times, particularly since the last few times you went to ANI, you were roundly repudiated, and that I can point to numerous AfDs (1, 2, 3; plus this ANI) that would, by your standards, amount to you hounding me. The point is, you need to drop the stick immediately. And the "you had no way" is bullocks when there are a whole lot of ways to get to any particular AfD, and I must also remind you that voting in a few AfDs here and there in no way constitutes HOUNDing. HOUNDing would be participating in every single discussion you participate in, which its blatently clear I have come nowhere close to doing. You have blown this out of insane proportions to the point of accusing me of HOUNDing almost every time we edit the same page (which only happens once every few weeks, I might add), and that is disruptive and frankly warrants a block pbp 01:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Your first example is ridiculous. I deprodded it, and you then sent it to AFD, which I participated in since I had the article on my watchlist after deprodding it. [7] You can't accuse me of following you if I went there first. And in the ANI page, someone mentioned these other articles, that how I found my way there. I was watching that article since I had a section above it which your link shows titled Wikihounding by Purplebackpack89, which was closed with a suggestion I bring it to request for comment instead. Dream Focus 01:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Nope, the diff I provided is to a ANI on a third party (GabeMc, who had tagged over a dozen articles I created in the span of only a few minutes), not me. You used the ANI to berate me. Why is it OK when you do it (which you pretty clearly do), but unacceptable when I do it? Oh, right, I forgot, you're totally hypocritical pbp 02:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I was already monitoring that page for the discussion above so I noticed that. I don't follow your contributions around ever. You know you do that to me, just not constantly, just from time to time when you think you can get away with it. Kindly get a life and stop hounding me. Dream Focus 02:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "I don't follow your contributions around ever". The evidence would suggest otherwise pbp 02:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You have no evidence at all. I on the other hand have shown time and again where you are clearly following my contributions.[8] You aren't fooling anyone. Dream Focus 02:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • All I'm seeing from you is innuendo pbp 03:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And all I'm seeing from you is someone lying constantly to try to hide what they are obviously doing. Its rather pathetic really. Dream Focus 03:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You seem to have forgotten that occasional monitoring of other's edits is perfectly acceptable. After all, you do it to me pbp 04:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I do not do it to you. I have never done it to you. I know what the rules state and I honestly would prefer to avoid people like you entirely. And it is not acceptable. You think you can get away with it if you do it occasionally instead of constantly, but its still hounding. Dream Focus 04:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If you prefer to avoid me, why participate in the discussions I linked above? You had a choice on those, and in all four cases, you chose engagement. Also, if you don't like engagement, why post to my talk page? And those are hardly the only cases where you've chosen to engage with me in a discussion I started or participated in first pbp 13:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If I deprod an article, then obviously I'm going to check in on the AFD and if I believe it should be kept, post keep. You didn't get there first, you arrived after me to nominate something I had deprodded. Avoidance doesn't mean hiding or changing what I'd normally do. I don't stalk you by checking your contributions looking for confrontation, while you on the other hand obviously do that to me as often as you think you can get away with it. Dream Focus 14:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And the GabeMc ANI and the Clinton and KOXY AfDs? I suppose you can explain those away too? I remind you again that checking other user's contributions is not and never will be against the rules; heck, loads of mops do it! You are just as bad as I am and you know it, yet you don't see me starting pointless ANI threads accusing you of hounding me and TenPoundHammer and God knows who else pbp 15:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I was at that ANI complaint already for the one I filed against you hounding me. I of course notice the new discussion of someone else accusing you down below and clicked the links there. I did not find the links by checking your contributions and deliberately going after you. These are unrelated things. You are upset I accused you AFTER you were caught doing it a few times? And I never accused anyone else of hounding, other than the now banned editor Jack Merridew, and that was years ago. Don't try to drag unrelated people into this. Dream Focus 15:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Dream Focus. You have new messages at Koavf's talk page.
Message added 01:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Justin (koavf)TCM 01:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

PPOT article recreated

Hi! I recreated the article about the Danish band PPOT. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I used my Highbeam account but only found one article where they mention the band and quote the guitarist. I tossed a link to it into the article as a reference. Dream Focus 01:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for adding that one! It's great to add English sources which give some details about the band. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Improving template

Regarding comment on template:VAP when you said there was little there gender-specific, I would like to remove anything which is gender-specific and was wondering if you had suggestions for something there which should be removed? Ranze (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I realize I worded things wrong. I should've been more specific. I have now responded and hopefully cleared things up. Some issues affect both genders, so no need for those articles to have just a template for women. Dream Focus 23:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


Your re-insertion of wp:REDFLAG material

Hi Dream Focus. Your edit comment here when you re-added a very surprising medical assertion needs to be backed up by the provision of the promised reliable sources. For such medical assertions, the standard to meet is wp:MEDREV. A television news spot doesn't come close to being good enough. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong. This is a reliable source, and there is no possible reason to doubt the information. Check Google news results and you'll find ample coverage of this in many reliable sources. Please don't start an edit war trying to remove it again. Dream Focus 09:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Redflag links to a bit that says "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;". That's not valid here, since it is covered by multiple mainstream sources. Dream Focus 09:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
While I think I've heard of that too (and as a molecular biologist, I have to say the use of viruses to target cancer therapies is not unheard of, albeit I'm unsure of its success), I'd like to see a WP:MEDRS-compliant source as well. A video by a mainstream news is not a RS for medical claims -unfortunately they get stuff wrong more often than right, when dealing with medicine/science. --Cyclopiatalk 06:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I find it unlikely scientists at a major university would lie about achieving something like this. A private company you could doubt, but would a university lie? I added in an additional source statement before my addition to the article was removed again. [9] Dream Focus 08:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Trust me, academic researchers lie. The point is however not about lying, but it is about how news reports science things, and how researchers themselves report their stuff (Hint: they both tend to hyper-inflate achievements). Just look for the academic paper about the claim. --Cyclopiatalk 12:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Variations of the Mega Drive move to list

I don't think we were quite ready for that move yet - I had just proposed that we do that as an alternative to simply merging the variations into the main Sega Genesis article, and we're in the middle of discussing that. I would recommend reverting that move until we figure out which direction we want to go with it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Whenever someone is confused about the nature of a list article, its always best to add "list of" in front of its name to clarify. You can never be too obvious. And the name change doesn't affect the pretend merge discussion. Nothing would be merged in this case, its just a way to get around going to a proper article for deletion which they aren't likely to succeed in their goal of destroying it. Dream Focus 23:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Honest politicians ARS canvassing

You do realize the following, right?

  1. Despite its rename, the article violates numerous policies and guidelines
  2. It should have been closed as delete the last time, but was only NC'd because you and Warden canvassed your ARS keepist buddies, as your again doing (and, no, ARS is not a legit WikiProject, and never will be)
  3. It is perfectly acceptable to renom something closed as no consensus at any time
  4. I didn't even start

In short, you and Warden need to stop spreading inaccurate information, and consider policy more carefully pbp 15:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)While I !voted delete to this specific article, this post by you is harassing, PBP. That ARS is a legit wikiproject has been reiterated year after year. The inaccurate information that you should stop spreading is that of "ARS canvassing". -- cyclopiaspeak! 15:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I was brought to this AFD by ARS, also !voted delete, and agree that your accusation is inappropriate. DF did not ask for !votes, he asked for people to improve an article. In this case, I think that request is futile, but making the request is certainly not inappropriate. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I have to agree with editors Cyclopia and Gaijin42. The ARS is a legitimate project, home to several of Wikipedia’s most scholarly editors. Its storied history stretches back almost exactly 6 years. The legends and heroes of the ARS will never be forgotten. Sadly, since about 2011 it seems to be watched by more deletionists than active sensible voters. If an article is controversial and under attack for other issues apart from notability, mentioning it on ARS could easily do more harm than good. It might have been a rare misjudgment by Dream to post about it there, but certainly not canvassing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
You're entitled to that opinion, but I'm entitled to believe that the ARS continues to be used to disruptive ends on a regular basis, this being one of those instances. Have there been any improvements to the article addressing the concerns in the AfD? I thought not (and the concept of the article is so flawed so that there really can't be). Dream Focus is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. And the fact is I didn't nominate it for deletion the first time, and it's not disruptive to nominate it now (it's been four months and it wasn't closed as keep), so he/Warden are wrong there on both counts, and I am well within my rights to call them on it pbp 18:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
"I'm entitled to believe that." - No, you're definitely not entitled to accuse a legitimate project of canvassing, nor to dismiss its legitimacy. You may disagree with ARS, you may disagree with their members' philosophies, but you cannot harass good-faith editors nor launch unfounded accusations. If you have proof of WP:CANVASS violations, go to AN/I and show it -otherwise you should really avoid this behaviour. -- cyclopiaspeak! 18:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Dream Focus lost my assumption of good faith ages ago, most recently with the inaccurate information above, which you continually fail to acknowledge pbp 18:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No one said you nominated it last time. You did try to delete it though, arguing with everyone in that AFD, but didn't get your way, so you are gaming the system by trying yet again. And you mentioned the ARS, making an unfounded and ridiculous often disproved accusation about this wikiproject. You could've nominated it without the slanderous attack. ARS is and always has and always will be a legitimate Wikiproject. Dream Focus 18:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    There has been no inaccurate information -at most, a divergence of opinions. PBP, this continuous harassing and ad hominem attacks go nowhere. You don't like people who would prefer to keep articles you would prefer to delete? Fine, let's agree to disagree, move on. All this whining about the ARS is ridicolous and insulting. I don't go harassing deletionists when I don't get AFDs my way. -- cyclopiaspeak! 19:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • PBP, please notice how many people are always against you on things like this? [10] 16 people said speedy keep after a new editor renominated the same article for deletion two days after it closed. You said: "I, for one, believe that immediate renomination of a no-consensus close is perfectly acceptable, and I can find no policy that suggests otherwise." So it doesn't matter if its been months or just a few days. No consensus does not mean keep trying until you get the result you want. Dream Focus 19:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Dream Focus, don't tell me what to do. EVER. And I stand 100% by that statement that things that are closed as no consensus can be renominated. What the heck do you think a relist is? Renomination, relist, same idea. The only nominations that you should wait a couple months on are things that have a consensus for keeping, merging, or redirecting. And you linked to a vote (a vote heavily influenced by the ARS, I might add) rather than an actual policy or guideline. There is no policy or guideline that says "An article that has been nominated for deletion with the deletion closed as no consensus cannot be renomination". And there never will be. And even if there was, four months have passed since the previous nomination, so that particular nomination (which is almost certainly going to end in delete) is perfectly acceptable. I'm going to keep on keeping on, whether you like it or not, and you need to accept that I have violated no policy and I am perfectly entitled to believe that ARS' actions are disruptive pbp 22:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
You can believe any crazy thing you want. You are not entitled the right to state this ridiculous bad faith accusations at the start of an AFD. You need to get your battleground mentality under control. Dream Focus 00:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
"Dream Focus, don't tell me what to do. EVER." - Watch out, we've got a badass over here. -- cyclopiaspeak! 07:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Tribune Entertainment edit warring

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Tribune Entertainment shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Spshu (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Reverting you one time doesn't count as edit warring. Please read the templates before you post them. Dream Focus 15:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Land Shark (Saturday Night Live), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Whitehouse, Maggia and Sins of the Fathers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin

I'd appreciate if you would take another look at the RfC discussion on the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. As you may be aware, I proposed specific text for consideration on 16 Aug in the discussion thread. I hope you will comment on that specific proposal. Dezastru (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Why? You want to make it sound like he is a racist, when he clearly is not. There is no possible reason to mention the race of the people he called 911 about in any form, since race had nothing to do with him calling to report them. Dream Focus 20:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Minority rights violations in Kosovo

A while ago, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo, you said the subject was referenced, but didn't address the issue of improper synthesis. Would you be interested in working on that subject in a less contentious scope? I noticed we don't have a human rights in Kosovo article yet, and a lot of that content sounds like it might fit there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No. It'll just get deleted. They could've just changed the name of the last article and done some trimming as necessary, but decided to delete it. Putting the bulk of the deleted content, the same exact information, in a new article, will most likely be deleted as well. If you want to do it, then ask the closing administrator to userfy it on your talk page, and you can then copy and paste sections over easily. You can also create a page for it at the abuse.wikia.com Dream Focus 12:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you mean that we indiscriminately copy all the old material to a new name, then yes, that would probably get deleted because it would remain to be improper synthesis - please read WP:SYNTH. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

List articles

Hi, Dream Focus. I'm in the process of completing a feature on the topic of "List article management" for WP:VG's newsletter and I was hoping to make this article include views from Wikipedians of several different perspectives. I've contacted a number of editors with whom I've interacted in the past (both in conflict and in cooperation), and several of them have agreed to help provide views for the article. I was hoping for two views at the very start to introduce the idea that inclusive "list of..." articles are one of the things that set Wikipedia apart (in a good way) from traditional encyclopedias. Sadly only one of the editors I contacted about this issue was available to provide a view. I've seen your arguments at AfD in favor of keeping "List of..." articles, and I think you might be well-suited to writing a few sentences covering this topic if you have the time. The newsletter is due out by October 3 so I apologize for springing this on you at the last second, but if you are interested in helping then you can find a draft of the article in my sandbox: User:Thibbs/Sandbox7. The part where I need one more quote is up at the top and you can just replace the dummy name "User:XXXXX" with your name. Please don't feel pressured, though, because I can always rework the article's top half if need be. I completely understand if you don't have time. Either way, thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject volleyball - invitation to discussion

This is an special invitation for experienced editors to the discussion in WikiProject Volleyball about the proposal for Notability Guide for Volleyball Players. Your wise and kind participation will be highly appreciated. Osplace 20:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Dream Focus. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volleyball.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A kitten for you!

Kitten in a helmet.jpg

I'm hiding from you.

Androzaniamy (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You're not almost always right.

Speedy deletion nomination of ThunderCats (1985 TV series)/Editnotice

Hello Dream Focus,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged ThunderCats (1985 TV series)/Editnotice for deletion, because it seems to be a test. Did you know that the Wikipedia Sandbox is available for testing out edits?

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a test, it just didn't work. It works when I do it on my user and talk page, just not on an article page apparently. Any idea how to make it work? Might not make any difference though. I notice that its always an IP address in the same range, thus surely the same person, that goes around to various articles adding that same category back into them, only to be reverted time and time again. Dream Focus 19:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Kill Screen

Oops. It looks like I got a little carried away when editing Kill screen, and I didn't look very closely at your edit. It seems as though we were both trying to add the same Ars Technica article as a source at the same time, and I assumed that you were simply reverting the page. My version uses citation templates and has minimalist, stubby language culled directly from the sources, instead of the original text, which is not currently supported by the citations offered. It's not an issue to me, though. I'll self-revert to your version, if you want. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I just used the Wikproject video game custom Google search for "dig dug" and "kill screen" and found that article, so restored the deleted content with that reference put in there. Making it shorter is fine, I don't really care. I believe the Super Mario Bros surely has a reliable source out too there somewhere covering it, but I was unable to find one. Dream Focus 22:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I spent a long time trying to find one, but there just don't seem to be any reliable sources that specifically call it a "kill screen". I did find one or two that referred to it as famous glitch, but that's not really the same thing. Subjectively, it seems to count, but I can't validate it in any reliable sources. I forgot about that custom google search. Thanks for reminding me. That probably would have saved me some time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Your AN/3RR

Are you sure you didn't want to combine it with the existing one, exactly 2 sections above yours? ES&L 09:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Dream Focus. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list.
Message added 12:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000(talk) 12:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of film clichés, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chase (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Undercurrents

Haha. You can never be too careful, can you. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hannah Anderson

Hi, I've received your message but given that it's now over 24 hours since the last vandalism I'm not sure it needs semi-protection for now. For the record I'm only about intermittently at the moment so you'll probably get a quicker response on WP:AIV or WP:ANI than on my talk page. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC).

Dragon Ball et al

I was wondering, is there a limit to the number of times someone can repeatedly attempt to re-merge or delete an article. While Ryulong did the AFD and subsequent merge at Dragon Ball after twice blanking and redirecting it out, we've already gone through at least 4 merge battles over Ghost in the Shell and the latest is no different. He dropped out of mediation and went right back to the argument after it was already discussed for 100 pages in length. I simply do not know what to do. It's such a waste of time and Ryulong repeatedly deletes improvements. The Dragon Ball page is likely going to be kept, but this battle over every single page is really disruptive and damaging. I don't know what options I have left. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

People like that never give up. If you get a handful of people like that together, they are virtually unstoppable, they enforcing their will on every article they get to, harassing anyone who feels differently until they give up arguing. When I first came to Wikipedia, there was a handful of people on Manga and anime Wikiproject, who somehow decided they were helping Wikipedia by mass deleting manga and anime articles. Large numbers of articles sent to AFD daily for a time there, no way to sort through them all, and most were deleted. One editor, who thankfully is no longer at Wikipedia, would take articles that she failed to delete, and go back later when she thought no one was watching, and replace these articles with a redirect. I created http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page to save as many articles as I could, copying over every anime and manga article Wikipedia had over there, and then doing a full history export for any article that was nominated for deletion. Dream Focus 13:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The merge discussion was done on Wikiproject talk page, as well as the talk pages of various articles in this series before. If you want to search around and find links to and list the dates of the times it was discussed already, that might be useful in stopping it from happening again. The same guy in this case started the merge discussion months ago, and then did so again now. How many other times has he tried this? Dream Focus 13:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
    Since January the Ghost in the Shell matter has been disputed. Since April, Ryulong has been a part of it which actually brought me in to the full and terrible realization of what is being done in this corner of Wikipedia. Ryulong initially accepted mediation, but was not content to have it be paused while he continued to bring up the core dispute in various venues. I can give a list of pages, but it has happened more than 15 times he's edit warred to redirect articles and several other users express his same sentiments which are best labeled as "extremist" because of the radical interpretation of policy. Some of the users believe WP:PAGEDECIDE allows articles to be repeatedly blank and redirected if several editors agree. Perhaps you caught a glimpse of it at the Dragon Ball anime AFD under "speedy close" entry which stated my protests under WP:BLAR for AFD as "Forum Shopping [with] an incompetent grasp of Consensus policies. [Chris's] perspective on the matter is weightless and he's just fishing for a more favorable outcome." Even the whole "merge" issue is completely against the purposes of a list. There is a deep divide, but it is clear that several members of the Anime and Manga Wikiproject are actively limiting notable content and believe that their destructive and disruptive removals are beneficial. If they do not believe such removals are beneficial than they are WP:NOTHERE to improve Wikipedia and should be dealt with accordingly. I just can't get them to engage in actual discussion or even state why their actions represent improvements - and Ryulong seems to be against it because he considers it fighting against "the fandom". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting Topic

Freshly Fallen.jpg Interesting Topic
Thank you for introducing the Wikipedia Community to an interesting topic, International Military Antiques Inc! Olowe2011 (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Heads up

Lucia has just merged the Ghost in the Shell manga to the original contested page.[11][12] Unless I am reading the !votes and arguments wrong, this is the third time it was no consensus this year. And if anything the discussion on the disamb is still in limbo. Given her comments at Talk:Ghost in the Shell (film) and the fact the manga is going to become a GAN when this is over and the game IS at GAN, I think a DISAMB is the best route. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I kinda sense what way you were going to go based on the discussion so I moved the Ghost in the Shell page to Ghost in the Shell (franchise) and made Ghost in the Shell redirect to Ghost in the Shell (disambiguation). As it stands the break down shows no consensus to merge the franchise article, but the disamb idea had more support. Dragon Zero thought disamb would be best and so did I. In another unrelated matter, Shiroi leaned heavily to disambs in the matter. Ryulong was on the fence since one existed, but the way it is now resolves that conflict. I believe given the situation that you'd find a disamb proper under WP:DISAMB - at least until the franchise gets more work and backing to prove otherwise. Since two of the articles featuring "Ghost in the Shell", film and game, are at GAN and the "Ghost in the Shell" manga was "no consensus to merge" the disamb is all the more necessary when the manga is finished and goes to GAN. The fair possibility of having three GAs on three different topics all bearing the same name alone is reason enough to have the disamb be the first page readers see. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of fish species that protect their young, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Suckermouth catfish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Again

Ryulong is trying to merge the Bleach (anime) page again; he's currently blocked for 24 hours for edit warring over at Knockout (violent game) which resulted in yet another RFC break down for a completely unrelated issue. ArbCom looks inevitable, but I worry about A&M's future. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice that. Not really taking him seriously though. It'll just be like the Dragon Ball anime merger attempt. [13] Dream Focus 01:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Duck Commander

The editor that you reverted I can tell is going to edit war and he has a upper hand on the 3rr in West Monroe, Louisiana so please help me out with what seems to be bias and not liking it for a personal reason that we will probably never tell. Jhenderson 777 20:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Also he removed the city in the navbox so it will be off of a article that is probably the main reason why he don't like. So what do you think? Related or not related? Jhenderson 777 20:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not really disagreeing with you, Dream Focus. Regarding the channels thing. The main thing is that there is not a article on the Duck Commander tv series yet. Not even a redirection. Which would probably belong on the tv channel if someone boldly created it. So it doesn't seem right to remove the channels until we get a article on that tv series yet. I will see if I can make a compromise though. Jhenderson 777 21:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
There. How does that work? Also I will create that redirection though. Maybe being the good inclusionist you are. You maybe can find notability for that so it won't link to the redundant link. Jhenderson 777 21:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • If we had a navbox for every single television show that's ever been on a channel, the television channel's article would be insanely long. Only the articles related to this should be in the navbox. Dream Focus 22:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Haha. I doubt that both A&E and the other channel made many that would have navboxes but I am not sure. I can assure it's not as bad as Stan Lee. Anyways you still don't remove until it's removed from the navbox mostly. Also of course I did it for you and decided to just make the link where I redirect the tv series subject at. I hope you have a Happy New Years! Jhenderson 777 02:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Si-cology 1: Tales and Wisdom from Duck Dynasty's Favorite Uncle

If you can put this on this on the watchlist or expand on this. Please do so. It's possible that it can be a victim of AFD. Jhenderson 777 14:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I did a quick look for the book's name in Google news search, and sorted through some of the hits. Only found passing mention of it. It is a bestseller though so going to have reviews out there in detail somewhere. Who wouldn't want to interview such an interesting person? Dream Focus 15:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Beerest 2 talk 02:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for accumulating so much information on your user page. And also thank you for just being around. Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Re:GA nonsense

"GA nonsense" is not 100% accurate. Many of the most broad articles are not GA, but many specific ones are GA or higher, including many military ones. While 99% of articles are not GA, the amount of work that goes into each article not at GA is not insignificant. It is not a good measurement stick to go by. Also, the GA process requires a full peer review of sorts and that is bottlenecking the process. I've done more than 50 in the last two weeks and that is completely insane. With that being said, I am sure I could do a GA a day if I needed to, but it takes 3+ months just to get the review started. That's such a broken process that the GAN system is the reason it so few people do it. I can try to fix that, but its something Wikipedia has made as its own barrier. Do you agree? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I wrote that after a debate at Talk:Sega_Genesis#Menacer_merge where some want to delete/redirect an article, because it doesn't have GA status, while the other related articles do. I pointed out how few articles on Wikipedia have that status, and that was a ridiculous reason to try to eliminate an article. I'll clarify on my user page. Dream Focus 21:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Gaufre biscuit.jpg Yum! Thanks for all of your work on Talk:Steve Jobs bojo1498 talk 20:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Robertson

Part of the problem is that he is not apparently part of any "anti-abortion movement" per se, and is "against abortion" but linking to any movement might be not actually called for. The headline using :anti-abortion" is not part of the source, and the source only says "against abortion." Which is likely the proper term to use, and not wikilinked to something which might convey an erroneous impression. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Pro-life redirects to Anti-abortion movements also. The source says he makes an anti-abortion speech, meaning he is against abortion obviously. We all know that "anti" means "against", so anti-abortion is the best term for an encyclopedia to use. Pro-life can be used for things other than anti-abortion, including those against the death penalty. Dream Focus 20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Which is a good reason for non-wikilinking here -- there is. moreover, a Pro-life (disambiguation) page as well. This issue is whether linking to a "movement" is proper in the case at hand. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Signpost

I guess you saw the signpost request for an ARS expose (if not it's here). Strange you were not notified. I am new to ARS and really like the idea of it and editors involved. However it seems like there are others out there who would like to see it closed down. I thought about replying but the questions led me to answers that I'm afraid could antagonize deletionists and/or draw attention to myself as an inclusionist to be knee-jerk resisted. And since this group has so few active members, a small handful, it's not clear bringing attention is going to harm or hurt. As such I'll add the page to my watchlist and follow not lead on the best way forward. I think a careful reply here could be beneficial to bringing in new users, but I don't know enough about the history of the project or where the fault lines are. Just some ideas it could be better suited to a reply by committee with a re-do of the questions (for example why the group was founded), basically using it as a recruitment platform. Or maybe ignored entirely. -- GreenC 17:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that four people were contacted, two of them never use the ARS at all, one of them posting on the talk page they didn't. That's how I found it. Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Wikiproject_Report Maybe just those active on the daily article for improvement project got contacted by mistake. Dream Focus 18:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Since you posted I'll try to add something. I'm pretty fed up with AfD at the moment, arguing the notability rules which are continually ignored, beating the same prone equine. Dealing with editors with bars for inclusion so high it would eliminate vast swaths of articles. Pre-determined votes with little or no research (usually based in personal bias), inability to be reasonable and flexible. It's like super-human effort to overcome -- and then often doesn't even work. And this just touches the surface.
I've enjoyed reading your page as you clearly have been through all this and more. It's a great resource and document. In some ways perhaps it reflects humanity and larger issues - tyranny vs rule of law; competition for resources. Someone should do a study. Anyway I appreciate your help in the past and will try to rally here. -- GreenC 19:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Whoa! I see what you are talking about by checking your recent history. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Achal_Prabhala_(2nd_nomination) is ridiculous! These people don't understand the guidelines. I commented there. I also contacted the three editors who said delete before you found over twenty reviews of the guy's work to ask them to look at it now. Don't ever give up and withdraw your vote. You made a valid case here. Dream Focus 20:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Well I appreciate your help. I withdrew for personal reasons. There's an editor on that page who recently showed up I am not willing to collaborate with. Fortunately we are not forced to work with anyone we don't want too. I think if more people took this stance there would be fewer Wikipedia drop-outs and less conflict. But maybe I'm crazy, works for me. Sorry didn't mean to embroil you into any specific AfD cases. -- GreenC 21:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry I missed the Signpost article thing, good job guys! I love the quote "one of the most important WikiProjects of them all, the Article Rescue Squadron." Because its actually true. I haven't been active at AFD lately, my concern there is more the lack of participation leading to bad results. E.g., I stumbled across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strange Universe the other day, it would have been deleted from laziness, not even ill-intentioned, if I hadn't fixed it.--Milowenthasspoken 17:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


Just to let you know

Your interview was mentioned: User_talk:Buffbills7701#Upcoming signpost wikiproject interview. XOttawahitech (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ample reviews found after you commented in an AFD

hi Dream Focus, I actually contributed to look for the sources by editing Achal Prabhala's article. I find that the abundance of sources clearly state the notability of this person. After the discussion was closed I even posted a note on the noticeboard of biographies of living persons (maybe not the right place) because I was surprised on how quickly it was closed. I obviously think the articles is a "keep" but I am not sure I should state it on the AFD; I have no COI but I know this person. Thanks for your work, --Iopensa (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Your comments on this talk page have now been quoted and commented on in the AFD by the guy arguing with everyone to delete it. [14] Dream Focus 10:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. --Iopensa (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with me?

I notice you've been trying to stir up opinions against my username in various places. If you've got a problem with me, my username, or my conduct, I'd appreciate you taking it up directly with me personally. (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's a problematic username, so expect things to be stirred up ES&L 14:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

COI spammer

Regarding User:Dotarray, I revisited the talk page and noticed that she'd already been given a final warning. The account has now been indefinitely blocked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

M\aybe you should sometimes ASK FIRST

Doom 4 is now Doom. Too. --Niemti (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

No, Doom 4 is still Doom 4. They did not announce it was being renamed. The link [16] doesn't show that. They call it "the DOOM beta access pre-order bonus" but don't say its going to be called Doom when the full game is released. Dream Focus 16:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A&M clean up

So I've come back from a little breather in the A&M space and found that tons of issues still remain. While I've been cleaning up a large amount of them, it still totals over 9000 issues. 1/3 articles in the project have some issue. Obviously, I can't do all the work, no one really could keep it all up, but I want a bunch of GAs in the area. Should we fix the issues to improve widely the problem - or should a focus on perfecting individual pages? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't pay attention to the rating system. If you are interested in an article, you'll read it, and if not, you won't. I sometimes check for mentions of things in reliable sources and add in references and additional information, but that's usually about it, and mostly just whatever I happen to be reading about, or something random I happen upon. You should probably just focus on Bleach (anime) as you are now, and move from there. It has 47,111 views in the past 30 days so its an important article. I'm not sure if there is a bot somewhere that can tell you which Anime and Manga articles got the most views, but if so, that'd help determine which ones should be worked on the most. Dream Focus 02:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Dream Focus. You have new messages at Ging287's talk page.
Message added 00:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Dragons of Summer Flame

Dream Focus, with respect to this edit of yours at Dragons of Summer Flame, you are quite simply wrong. There's been extensive discussion of which parameters are appropriate to infoboxes, and the agreement reached was publisher and release date should indeed be on the same line. (The month a book was published is unnecessary information). If you don't believe me, then try asking Randkitty, who is an experienced editor, or ask for help from WikiProject Books. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Books#should_infobox_contain_the_month_as_well_as_the_year_something_was_published.3F I started a conversation about that. Since it affects thousands of articles, it needs to be discussed properly. Not one infobox of any type across Wikipedia puts two things on the same line, as you wish to do with the publisher's name and year published. Books, comics, manga, films, television shows, and video games, always list the month and even day if it is available. Dream Focus 00:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
You're quite wrong about infoboxes never putting "two things on the same line", but I won't argue about that here. I've replied to you on the WikiProject Books talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Pointiness

New comment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Racism_in_the_United_States#Pointiness

Evildoer187 (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thank you for your help at Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency, much appreciated.

I've added a small bit to the lede, per your prior edit summary note request.

Cute bunny.

Cirt (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Unblocking

Hi. In case you didn't already know, Asgardian has been unblocked. Just thought you should know. Nightscream (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

They say he is "indefinitely topic-banned from Marvel Comic". So he can only cause problems in other articles. And they won't ban him the first time he is caught acting up again, but instead only block him for a month. Only his third block will be permanent. Rather odd way to do it. Dream Focus 23:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Girls with guns for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Girls with guns is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls with guns (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Chicken Kiev speech

I undid your edit to that talk page. If theweek.com is a "high traffic" web site, consider putting the {{high traffic}} template right above the first comment. If it is not a high-traffic site, then just leave it alone. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Its referenced in 951 Wikipedia articles. Facebook ads link to new stories by it now. 104k Facebook likes. No article for the website exist yet, which is odd, it seems to be a major news site, but they don't have an About page about them. I couldn't remember what the template was to mention something was mentioned in the news. Dream Focus 20:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Kuzma's Mother

You're right; a bomb and a bell aren't connected in normal thought. The connection is that naming the bomb the Tsar Bomba was analogous to the naming of the the other two well-known "tsars" in Russian history: the Tsar Bell and the Tsar Cannon (I don't know anything about a Tsar Tank). However, I'm content with your edit. SkoreKeep (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The naming took place centuries apart. Many things have "tsar" in the name, just as many things have "Caesar" in their name. But we don't link Caesar salad, Caesar (cocktail), Caesar (dog), Caesar (Planet of the Apes), and Little Caesar together. Dream Focus 02:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Calendar

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Calendar. Thanks. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Wayback machine

Its a search engine so you put in [http://web.archive.org/web/20050401000000*/http://silverbulletcomicbooks.com/reviews for reviews ..silverbulletcomicbooks.com/news for news etc. As you find each use of the site as a reference just determine what it is and then search by clicking on the years that the review is from and then the months come up. As long as you know what it is and the date it isn't that difficult to locate the old reviw or news item.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

A random selection from Febuary 2007: http://web.archive.org/web/20070210061139/http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/reviews/. --Mark Miller (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Mostly I see external links that link to reviews on that site and others. Not the way its suppose to be laid out anyway. Unless someone runs a bot to do this automatically, I don't think anyone is going to go through and manually do it for over a hundred articles. Dream Focus 07:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
If you think it is important enough, this would call for a task force of maybe two or three people a few hours a day for a few days. I could mention it on one of the projects. I know the best editor/admin to at least drop a note to who might be willing to get the ball rolling. They seem willing to help out in Comic book related articles.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. I just posted at the Wikiproject for comics. [17] I don't care enough to bother with it, but someone else can if they feel like it. Dream Focus 10:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

highly disappointed

I am disappointed that you of all people would incorrectly use copyright as a reason to delete a sentence.[18] This is a really ignorant view of copyright which people who destroy other peoples contributions use. Wholesomegood (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to write things in your own words, don't just copy and paste something word for word from an article. Dream Focus 17:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Dream, you would be surprised who this is. I always thought you were always neutral about the retention of sourced material. I am surprised that you are deleting well sourced information. I want you to keep face in all this, but I don't feel comfortable emailing you. Wholesomegood (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
You suggested having it there, and three other editors participated in the discussion and listed reasons against it. You aren't following consensus. Dream Focus 22:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Dream Focus. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Category:Keynote speaker

Category:Keynote speaker, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't create it, someone else did by adding people to it, I just turned it from a red link to a blue. I have informed the real creator of this category of the situation though. Dream Focus 04:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 16 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Solar Roadways

I am notifying everyone who participated in the Solar Roadways DRN that there is an open RfC at Talk:Solar_Roadways#RfC:_Should_the_cost_to_cover_the_entire_USA_be_included.3F if you have an interest in participating. Thanks. -- GreenC 20:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Notable vs Weight

Hi, I'm okay with This edit and am stopping by just to point out that your use of "notable" in the edit summary suggests you don't know the difference between WP:NOTABILITY and WP:WEIGHT. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Any award that gets independent coverage in reliable sources is notable by Wikipedia standards. All notable awards should be mentioned. These aren't just some local town's county fair award for best looking pig or whatnot. Dream Focus 23:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Actually, no I was not ok with the edit. You restored without discussion. That's edit warring. I'll start the thread at talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You incorrectly erased something, and I restored it, then edited it to a bullet list format, adding each entry after finding a source to reference for it. It was certainly not edit warring. Feel free to discuss it on the relevant talk page though. Dream Focus 23:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Dream Focus. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 20:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion nomination for Danielle Judovits

I'm inviting you to take part in this discussion to detail the fate of Danielle Judovits' page as you had partook in some discussions for some other voice actors. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Actor Pages

Hi. Just want to say that I really appreciate your strong Keep votes on the deletion on most of the Actor pages including Catherine Taber. I don't know if ‎Binksternet is a true Wikipedia admin or not. He/She seems to be on everybody's nerves including mine. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

He started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Voice_actors arguing that voice actors weren't notable, now getting support to remove them from WP:ENTERTAINER so they can be mass deleted. Dream Focus 01:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Man, this is starting to boil my blood. If only we had more users that would oppose to the removal. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
If they start deleting those pages, I'm not sure if I can continue making contributions here on Wikipedia. I wish this whole problem never happened in the first place. I also sometimes wish that Binksternet never existed, but I can't go too far. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
We all feel that way at times. It'll pass. Sometime articles are saved, and sometimes they are lost. It all depends on what random group show up to comment in the AFD, and the personal opinions of the closing administrator. That's how it has always been on Wikipedia, no one ever able to agree on any specific rules, it just nonstop arguing for all these years, no end in sight. Dream Focus 08:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BNA access email

Hey Dream Focus, just wanted to remind you that I sent an email 5 days ago detailing how to get access to BNA through The Wikipedia Library, please make sure to follow those instructions and complete the Google Form. Thank you, Sadads (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I already did, but I went ahead and did the Google Form thing again. Dream Focus 16:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
You were mentioned on Jimbo's talk page, and going through your talk page I can quickly say that you definitely deserve another barnstar to adorn your rather oversized collection...

I wish you good luck in your Wiki-Career. Um, yes. Enjoy the barnstar! --k6ka (talk | contribs) 20:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Keesings access

Hey Dream Focus, I have approved your access to Wikipedia:Keesings but need you to follow the instructions in the email I sent a week ago. Sadads (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I just signed up for it. I guess it'll know my Wikipedia user name or my email and let me in. No special code in the email was given me. No email confirmation sent to me yet, I guess I just wait for that. Dream Focus 14:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

List of chess-related deaths

hi, any thoughts on how best to deal with this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_chess-related_deaths --Zymurgy (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I was waiting for them to restore the article, as is standard when something is at deletion review. If I can't see the article, I can't really form an opinion on it. Dream Focus 15:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
An administrator has temporarily restored the page. See this version. It sounds like a great topic for an article but the results are not too impressive. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm reading it now. Yeah, I agree, doesn't look like its worth saving, since people kill one another over other games and other things they argue about all the time. Dream Focus 16:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Instead of reverting you at the draft page again, if you could provide the actual quotes and time of videos where HL3 is mentioned, I can leave it. I can only see the sources saying it might be part of the Half-Life series, nothing else.

  1. Kotaku "Newell calls the character's inclusion and use of sign language an "excuse to build the technology for signing" in an unspecified game."
  2. Joystiq - they are using the video, and guessing "Valve's Gabe Newell appears"
  3. focus group video time it is mentioned???
  4. Also the gametrailers link is 21 minutes long, a time is needed or I will just remove the entire thing.--Vaypertrail (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The title of the Kotaku article is Valve Studying Sign Language For Deaf Half-Life Character. The Joystiq article's title is "Valve researching sign language for use in Half-Life 2: Episode 3", and the Destructoid article is titled "Valve's learning sign language for Half-Life 2: Episode 3". Dream Focus 04:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question, those are just headlines to grab readers. If the sources are using that video as the source, why can't you also show me where in the source it says this? Speculation is not allowed per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYN.--Vaypertrail (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you serious? Do you doubt the information in the headlines for a reliable sources? Destructoid's headline is "Valve's learning sign language for Half-Life 2: Episode 3" followed by "Valve's Gabe Newell has been moving his hands around in very fast, repetitive motions in a room full of people. By that, I of course mean that he's been practicing sign language, and is looking at how to implement it in videogames, most notably Half-Life 2: Episode 3." Secondary sources such as this are preferred to primary sources in Wikipedia. Dream Focus 10:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Then why does the Kotaku source say the complete opposite? If I can't see it in the source they are referencing, and neither can one of the other sources, then that trumps their own single interpretation of the video.--Vaypertrail (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Please reread that article carefully. The title is "Valve Studying Sign Language For Deaf Half-Life Character" with the article starting off "While Valve has been largely silent on what's happening with Half-Life 2: Episode 3, a recent focus test at the developer may point to the inclusion of a deaf character that ties into supporting character Alyx's past". Also look at the other two as well. Joystiq has the headline "Valve researching sign language for use in Half-Life 2: Episode 3" and then the article stats off "Valve's Gabe Newell appears to have recently conducted a focus group with deaf individuals in order to learn more about sign language and how it can be applied to games, notably the upcoming Half-Life 2: Episode 3." If you want, ask for more opinions on the video game wikiproject. Dream Focus 10:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll bring this up again if the article is in article space, the half-life wikia seems to cover this more accurately[19][20] where it makes no conclusion the deaf related content is for HL3, only the half-life universe.--Vaypertrail (talk)
Doesn't matter what a wikia anyone can edit and say whatever they want at, has to say about the matter. We go by what reliable sources say on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 17:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:List of anime series by episode count

Your expertise and comment would be appreciated in this talk page discussion. Thanks. Hei Liebrecht 23:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Horvitz FYI

We've already determined on the talk page that the David Horvitz whose wife is Francie Bishop Good is a completely different David Horvitz from the new media artist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)