:::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. [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 20:27, 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. [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 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. -- [[User:Green Cardamom|<font color="#006A4E">'''Green'''</font>]][[User_talk:Green Cardamom|<font color="#009933">'''C'''</font>]] 21:24, 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. -- [[User:Green Cardamom|<font color="#006A4E">'''Green'''</font>]][[User_talk:Green Cardamom|<font color="#009933">'''C'''</font>]] 21:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
== Ample reviews found after you commented in an AFD ==
hi [[User:Dream Focus|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 [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Achal_Prabhala|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, --[[User:Iopensa|Iopensa]] ([[User talk:Iopensa|talk]]) 21:58, 21 February 2014 (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. DreamFocus00:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus10:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus10:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 talk05:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus02:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus01:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus13:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus14:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus19:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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]DreamFocus22:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 pbp22:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. pbp03:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus08:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Milowent • hasspoken14:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus20:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus00:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus06:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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) pbp18:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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]DreamFocus19:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. pbp19:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus19:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. pbp19:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus20:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. pbp20:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus20:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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\talk20:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus15:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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—
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.
..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 pbp01:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus02:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus20:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? DreamFocus19:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 pbp23:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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? DreamFocus00:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 pbp01:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus01:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 pbp02:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus02:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus02:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And all I'm seeing from you is someone lying constantly to try to hide what they are obviously doing. Its rather pathetic really. DreamFocus03:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have forgotten that occasional monitoring of other's edits is perfectly acceptable. After all, you do it to me pbp04:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus04:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 pbp13:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus14:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 pbp15:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus15:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus01:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus23:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for chiming in on the articles: Jordan Dale Lucas and Brian Whitlock. If these articles are deleted, I suggest a new article called either:
Animal cruelty incidents in Canada
OR
Canadians convicted of animal cruelty
I would appreciate your input on a new name for the article and a suggestion on how to write-up the new article. Presumably, I can just copy and paste the original articles into an article with a new name.
Thank you IQ125 (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both "The Vessel" and "In the Blood" involved people being sent into space on missions for a space agency called USAS. GusF (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping to save this crucial article from destruction. There were about a thousand ways it could have been expanded, but your suggestion in the AfD about changing attitudes through history seemned the best. So, I expanded the article along those lines. I thought I'd send you a mssg as the last scholar I cited was good Jane McGonigal. I see her as very much a kindred spirit to yourself. Like you she's a specialist in games, also has a broad interest in all sorts of scholarship, and is always trying to make the world a better, happier place for regular people to live in. She's also rather gorgeous. You probably know her already, but just in case, I reccomend you read her book Reality is Broken. (Only partly about workmanship, but all about how the real world can be made better through a good knowledge of games. ) FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have really expanded that article [10] and did so after it closed as Keep. I do try to find reliable sources to quote from whenever possible to save articles in need, and to find sources for anything with a citation needed tag, but writing out entirely new articles is always much harder. Normally I just do it for articles that catch my interest. Recently I created BacillaFilla because that is just an amazing thing to have. Its like magic, it taking cracks and concrete and making them vanish. DreamFocus01:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for creating the BacillaFilla article Dream. I'd not heard of that product, most interesting. It reminds me of an AfD I saw from North's page a few weeks back. It was for a type of self healing concrete that repairs its own cracks, by molecular process so it doesnt even need bacteria. Deletionists seemed to think the ability might be a hoax, but it fact even the ancient Romans knew how to make a type of self healing mortar. I put a source for that into our Self healing material article. If we can't get a wiki version of BacillaFilla, making the wikipedia self healing would be just as good. It would only take a few hours for devs to make it so that any deleted article that's not an attack page or hoax would automatically recreate after 3 months. Sadly, if someone tried to propose this on VP, hordes of deletionists would crawl out of the woodwork to oppose. At least we can dream. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AfD that you and I have been going back and forth on
Hi there! First off, I'm choosing to contact you on your talk page because I do not believe this question/call for assistance belongs on an AfD discussion (actually, I'm 100% sure it doesn't). I'm not here to argue the issue further (for I do not wish for that to happen). Anyway. My history here has been minute at best and my experience is very low. I've been trying to get involved with AfD more, and the more and more I read it, the more and more I've started to wonder about the process. That, however, is for another day again, altogether. One issue I face is that I do agree with you, articles which have a chance of being improved, such as this one, should not meet the chopping block, I'm just unsure how to handle, I guess. I'm curious to know your opinion as someone with a bit more experience as I:
Is it appropriate to 'withdraw' my opinion on deleting this article, considering how sloppily I've put together my opinions? (I suppose my cause for this is inexperience in some of WP's lesser known or referenced policies)
Is it then one's responsibility...or at least "calling", I suppose, to try and help improve this article, specifically after withdrawing a delete opinion? I do find things wrong with it but am unsure of how to start besides just generic cleanups and inline citations.
People change their minds in AFDs all the time. You put a line through your previous comments if you want, or just the delete part, and then say "keep". And anyone is welcomed and encouraged to improve the article. DreamFocus00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TA edits
Hi Dream focus, I have some questions about your last edits in the TA article: First, I was thinking it is prefered to have secondary and not primary sources (what was "inaccurate"???). And second, why do you removed the naming of reference??? Shaddim (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason not to use the primary source for information not in any reasonable doubt. You can see the archived of their website showing their downloadable units. If it was someone claiming how successful they were then you'd need a secondary source to make sure they weren't lying/exaggerating. I removed a reference and the naming of that reference since that site is not a reliable source. See WP:RELIABLE. And they didn't release exactly one new unit every single month, they just tossed them out whenever they had them done, so I changed the wording of that. DreamFocus22:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. LeadSongDogcome howl!04:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus09:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus09:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Cyclopiatalk06:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. [11]DreamFocus08:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Cyclopiatalk12:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus23:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honest politicians ARS canvassing
You do realize the following, right?
Despite its rename, the article violates numerous policies and guidelines
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)
It is perfectly acceptable to renom something closed as no consensus at any time
I didn't even start
In short, you and Warden need to stop spreading inaccurate information, and consider policy more carefully pbp15:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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 pbp18:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
Dream Focus lost my assumption of good faith ages ago, most recently with the inaccurate information above, which you continually fail to acknowledge pbp18:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus18:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
PBP, please notice how many people are always against you on things like this? [12] 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. DreamFocus19:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 pbp22:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus00:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to drop you a quick note about your edit in Microsoft Mahjong: The version published by Microsoft Studios and developed by Arkadium is for Windows 8/Windows 2012 only. The other one in the next infobox is for Windows 7. Hope this clarifies things.
By the way, I know another Dream Focus in another Wiki far far away. His signature is just like yours. But you didn't hear this from me.
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.
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus20:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 DreamFocus12:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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. DreamFocus19:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus22:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Let's address this now before it spreads, shall we?
This seemed rather pointed and borderline personal, as did your reversion of my edit at Sega CD earlier today. I understand you're not happy with my points of view which differ from yours, but I can detect that this is starting to go from opposing points of view to a deeper level which I don't think either of us want to reach. As such, I'd much prefer if we can talk this out and come to a reasonable understanding, separate from the Sega Genesis discussions and keep things polite and friendly; that even if we disagree, we can respect the viewpoints of the other and hold discussion cleanly. What do you say? Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past...02:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through everything listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion and that was one of the things nominated for deletion. It is ridiculous you didn't spend a second clicking the Google news search to see all the reliable sources covering it. I have for years criticized lazy nominators for wasting everyone's time with pointless AFDs, so don't take it personal. And I can not respect the viewpoints of others, if their viewpoints are to waste everyone's time trying to delete things, without following WP:BEFORE. You also just casually eliminated another article without any discussion, nor spending a moment looking for reliable sources that covered it. [13]DreamFocus08:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you did at Sega CD previously to me finding my way to the AFD in question, is totally unacceptable. [14] You wish to eliminate the article List of variations of the Mega Drive, so you eliminate where it was linked to in another article. Also instead of fixing a table that appears too long in the default zoom setting of Firefox's latest update, you just deleted it. You should try to fix problems, don't just destroy everything. And you replaced a specific number with the word "several" which is not the encyclopedic thing to do. Your edit summary comment after I reverted you "Is this seriously the way we're going to play this?" seems to indicate you are taking this too personally. DreamFocus08:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see then where we're having some issues. I understand you're very much an inclusionist editor, and I can respect that, having been one before myself. While that was the case, I very much see myself nowadays with a category of editors I'm sure you're familiar with, deletionist-mergist-redirectionist (DMR for short), though I more preferentially lean toward merge and redirect over deletionism when applicable. That is my way of fixing problems, by taking a good hard look at the notability and encyclopedic value of an article, weighing out its content, and acting appropriately with WP:BOLD where I don't believe it will stir up controversy, or discussing it where it will. Such is the case with Menacer and Turbo Touch 360, and even though Turbo Touch 360 has been covered a little in the media, I still doubt it will ever make more than a Start-class article, and that bothers me (i.e. for a third-party accessory, is it truly revolutionary? Is it actually a noteworthy subject or did a few period newspapers just happen to touch on this device briefly?).
Trust me, my contributions will show you I don't just hack up a bunch of articles, but I do believe in high standards for articles and carefully weight out their potentials as articles or as sections within other articles. The latter is the case with List of variations of the Mega Drive, and the redirect in Sega CD was because we have a quality section in Sega Genesis, much more so than is in the list, and as of the current moment would be a more helpful link to the reader—and on a brief side note, I eliminated the number because we really don't know what we are counting; Sega CD itself had two variations, along with the Multi-Mega/CDX, two versions of the Wondermega (along with two versions of the X'Eye), LaserActive, and Aiwa's player, but what are we actually counting when we give the reader a figure like that? The table adjustment as well was because the length was getting absolutely ridiculous, and trust me, it's in more than Firefox's update—I don't use Firefox. Now, in regards to the variations list, what you're going to need is something to assert notability for each variation, something I do not think is feasible, but hey, if you can rewrite the list and prove me wrong, I'd be happy to withdraw my support for a redirect. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past...13:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus13:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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? DreamFocus13:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
During the recent AfD for Bisexuality in the Arab world (closed as 'keep') you will either have seen opinions expressed to expand the scope of the article, or voiced that opinion yourself. I am placing this notice on the talk pages of all who expressed an opinion of whatever type in that deletion discussion to invite you to participate in a discussion on article scope and title at Talk:Bisexuality in the Arab world. You are cordially invited to participate. By posting this message I am not seeking to influence your opinion one way or another. FiddleFaddle10:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pink-headed duck
Sorry, didn't see the "read the article" part of your edit summary. The problem is that the article specifies its official status (right there in the infobox) as CR. Does that need to be updated? --Rhododendrites (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I guess I'm still confused as to what the best way to phrase the inclusion criteria for a list of extinct animals would be if not the IUCN -- because it seems like that's pretty commonly (in infoboxes and elsewhere) the standard. Seems like a bad idea to use just any and varied sources to determine the binary of in-list or not-in-list. --Rhododendrites (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they base their rating on reports from a small number of local fishermen, that's fine. If that's a source people trust. Read their official page. two credible reports from local fishermen and during the 2006 ... gathered the most convincing reports to date from a local fisherman that the species still occurs in the area (Tordoff et al. 2008). Further searches took place in January 2008 in northern Kachin State, focusing on the three sites from which there had been recent reports or claims, but the team failed to find convincing evidence of the species's continued existence there (Eames 2008). Forget what the experts say, as long as a random fisherman here or there says they might've seen something, that's good enough. DreamFocus15:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that sounds silly. Nonetheless, Wikipedia:Conservation status does say that we go by IUCN for species extinct since 1500 (before that is less clear). In the section on Special Wikipedia categories, it does list "Critical (Possibly Extinct) CR (PE), a semi-official category introduced by BirdLife International and likely to be adopted by other authorities including the IUCN in the near future. The weight of evidence points against the continuing existence of the taxon, but final surveys are still pending. Examples: Eskimo Curlew, Turquoise-throated Puffleg." So it sounds like, if anything, the duck would be in that category for Wikipedia purposes (and then used by the IUCN possibly later?). It's all a little pedantic, I know. I just hate to see arbitrary lists posing as encyclopedia articles (arbitrary as in, relying on OR, with no sources and no clear inclusion criteria). --Rhododendrites (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New section on the Anime and Manga RfC
Hello there. Since the Anime and Manga RfC seems to have developed a consensus for the "It depends on notability and uniqueness of each adaptation", I have started a thread to see if we can offer metrics or further guidance for such case by case... erm... cases. I have no idea if such a thing is even possible to draft up, but since having it might help, I figured I'd try. The thread is HERE, and as a previous participant in the RfC I wanted to let you know about it using this overly long, rambling message. Cheers, Sven ManguardWha?15:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lucia has just merged the Ghost in the Shell manga to the original contested page.[16][17] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hi,
I understand that you had a reason for deleting the content in the AfD, but please be aware that it is almost never acceptable to remove content from a deletion discussion, even if it's your own. The guidelines for talk pages are a good fit for deletion discussions, and can be found here. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notice the administrator in question has removed the same post when it was reinserted by that editor. [19] "doesn't seem to be of direct relevance here". Same reason I gave for removing it. DreamFocus20:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Tin box".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk17:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, thanks for your hard work this year, you deserve wonderful holidays!
I wish you success and happiness in your endeavours for this coming year, and I hope we'll be able to carry on improving the wonderful project that is Wikipedia together! Keep rocking on! :)
Salvidrim!, wrapping up another great year of collaboration with y'all!
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. Jhenderson77720:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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? Jhenderson77720:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. Jhenderson77721:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. Jhenderson77721:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus22:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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! Jhenderson77702:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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? DreamFocus15:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 2talk02:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus21:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- GreenC17:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- GreenC19:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus20:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- GreenC21:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
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)
FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
