Jump to content

User talk:Dream Focus: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ikip (talk | contribs)
59,234 edits
Ikip (talk | contribs)
59,234 edits
Invitation
Line 986: Line 986:


[[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 18:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
[[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 18:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
==Invitation==
I am just starting this page: [[User:Ikip/p]], a straw poll for all ARS members to comment in.

I welcome you to comment and contribute. [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 21:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:40, 7 May 2009

Dream Focus Talk Page

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

voltron

Horrified by the senseless destruction of perfectly valid and interesting information on the Voltron article, I informed a key contributor to it of the Wikia, encouraging him to start one there, and become its administrator. Alas, he wasn't interested in that, so I created it myself and copied information over, and added to it just a bit over time. Feel free to join in. Dream Focus 16:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] this is an earlier version also i would recommend checking the voltron article between 6 and 10 of October

Dwanyewest (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Fair use rationale for Image:Xrifle1.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Xrifle1.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 12:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added in the paperwork, so its fine now. I believe it meets all requirements, as do the rest. Dream Focus (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]










Thank you Guettarda Dream Focus (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


List of legit media to determine notability

You've probably seen the comment already, but I accidentally posted it on your user page. I'm sorry if you found the action impolite. But if you'd like to know if something specific is a reliable source, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard could help. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 05:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, its fine. I was just hoping someone would make a list of every single news source in Japan, and elsewhere, which I could then check to see if something was notable or not. Manga doesn't get reviewed often in English news sources unfortunately, plus its hard to find the sales figures of anything. Dream Focus (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea. It's hard looking up notability for manga. There are some sites out there. Have you checked comipress.com or icv2.com? If the manga is licensed in English, I'm sure you can get something there. icv2 has a lot of sales figures if you need them. animenewsnetwork.com also has some good info, although you can't trust everything you see there. If all else fails, check around the good and featured articles. Sorry if I mentioned some you already checked. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 05:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/13916.html only shows me sales figures month by month it seems, and its a rather confusing list. Did all of those big name comics sell so poorly that month? That is shocking. Comic book writers and artists usually just have one comic a month they put out. They couldn't pay their staff if their sales were that low. Dream Focus (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to find the lists confusing too. Although I guess the sales are so low because you have to count the comic's graphic novels too. The sales are also based on sales by Diamond US to comic stores. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 20:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, one should keep in mind that while they are top manga titles, manga is still very much a niche reading market in North America, and that the economy as a whole is weak now, so people have cut back on purchases of "non-essentials" (not that I consider manga that LOL). Some interesting articles that may help both of you understand the numbers and seemingly low sales more: ICv2 Discussing the 2005 manga market, Projected 2009 releases down because of bad market, Publishers Weekly article on the close of Broccoli. The ICv2 guide would likely make some very interesting reading, but gotta pay for it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, you're so much more informed than I am. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 21:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using WorldLingo seemed to work, although it didn't manage to translate it all, it might help. (translation) --Legeres (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll look through that later on. This will be quite helpful at those times when Google translator fails. Dream Focus 16:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Main Page pics

Hello, Dream Focus. You have new messages at Talk:Main Page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

§hep • Talk 02:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER

Regarding your response to me in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayu Sakai: No, WP:ENTERTAINER does not apply -- if you look at the beginning of WP:CREATIVE, it explicitly says that it is the guideline to apply to authors and artists. WP:ENTERTAINER is for actors and other performers (though not musicians, as they're covered by WP:MUSIC). —Quasirandom (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it applies to comedians and opinion makers as well. I believe the manga artist qualifies as that. Dream Focus (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but a manga artist is an author and artist, which is what WP:CREATIVE explicitly is for, so that applies. This has been the consensus in many previous AfDs without controversy. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall it ever coming up before, nor would I care if the small number of people around that day, agreed with something or not, while the majority just decided not to argue. If someone fits in more than one category, then they can be made notable by the set of rules in any of those categories. This is how it is for others who fit more than one category. Unless you find a specific policy saying otherwise, that's what I'll go by. Remember, consensus means the perceived opinions of whatever small number of people were around at that time, who decided to post their opinions, and is that by itself does not become official wikipedia policy. Dream Focus (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True enough. But it's also true that WP:CREATIVE has been cited as the relevant guideline in many mangaka AfD discussions without anyone batting an eye or disagreeing, and silence did equal consent. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deletionists

Yeah yeah, everyone knows this. It won't help though. As I've said before, Wikipedia's community is controlled by some hardcore shut-in nerds with nothing better to do than circlejerk to their own shared ideal of a what an un-scholarly online encyclopedia website should be. The best thing to do is just leave, ignore it and let them make a sad attempt at turning this place into Encarta. I only come check back at this place because I'm some sort of masochist and/or I have a morbid curiosity to know just how pathetic and rigid people can be. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akane-chan Overdrive

The debate for Akane-chan Overdrive was closed by MBisanz on 06 February 2009 with a consensus to merge. It says merge, it doesn't say redirect, which is all Farix did, he didn't merge a damn thing. He is working in contravention of a posted vote, to further his ends when he blanked the page before the vote. The vote says we don't have to merge everything, but he didn't do anything, and reverted my actual merger which was the stated outcome of the vote. Now this is a WP:POINT violation, done in WP:bad faith. Please have a look. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They did that before. Merge is the same as delete for them, they just don't call it delete, thus perhaps getting votes from people that would otherwise say Keep. The only information that will be shown is what was already there, which is the name of the series. And the edit was done at 02:21, 6 February 2009, which is the same time as the end of the AFD, it saying to merge. It is rather arrogant of him to have to tried to skip the AFD process altogether, and do that on his own before hand. You were right to protest. You could contact those who voted for merge, and ask if what they would've voted for if they only had the choice of Keep or Delete, and see if that matters. If enough of them say they'd change their vote, then you can ask for the article to be reviewed, there a link to that at the end of the AFD discussion. Three of them I know will want it deleted anyway, since that's what they do all day, but the others I'm not sure about. And you might want to go to www.wikia.com and see if there is a wiki for everything featured in Jump, and if not you can create one. I'll help you with it if you want. Then in the writer's page, you are allowed to link to the wiki, and that'll provide people with information who want to know more about the series. Wikia is owned by wikipedia, but allows and encourages you to add in as much information as you want. Check out what I did with the Gantz wiki. http://gantz.wikia.com/wiki/Gantz_Wiki You can help people get the information they want, without worrying about any misguided people trying to delete things, because they believe they are somehow making the wikipedia better by eliminating articles people find useful and interesting. Dream Focus (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User page

You know, 'the wikipedia' doesn't own Wikia in any sense. --Gwern (contribs) 15:54 8 February 2009 (GMT)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikia Same guy who founded and runs wikipedia founded it, and profits from it. Dream Focus (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Other people have reverted your edits as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Jenkins&diff=next&oldid=268332187 In fact, you have a history of bad edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:128.243.253.111#Final_warning And why not register a name instead of using the IP address? It will prevent you from being confused with others who might share the same IP address. Dream Focus (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's got nothing to do with the particular edit that was reverted. Yes, this is a shared IP address and a lot of the edits can be nonsense, but my edits should be evaluated on their individual constructiveness, not reverted on assumptions. --128.243.253.111 (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to notability

Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

"Don't try to reason with them, they don't like using the reasoning part of their brain.". That's a clear personal attack. I would've only deleted that sentence, but it made the rest of the paragraph meaningless, which is why I removed the whole thing. Black Kite 19:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have different parts of your brain. Instead of using their reasoning skills to determine if something should remain, some prefer to ignore everything other than the policy rules. That is a fact, not an insult. An example of this would be the case where a woman couldn't move her car, since after a storm a tree had blown down atop of it. Someone then gave her a parking ticket for being there past hours. According to the rules, she shouldn't have been parked there at night, and thus was ticked. Have you honestly never met anyone like that before in your life? I mention above that bit, about how they don't think its notable if its on the bestseller's list, because the rules state you have to be mentioned in a newspaper review. That's the thought of people I am complaining about, they unable to or simply not wishing to use the reasoning parts of their brains. Dream Focus 19:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(refactor) Not a great analogy, to be honest. Perhaps others would argue that such policies are there for a reason. Is it too much to ask that you alter that particular sentence? Black Kite 19:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced it with something else to get the point across better. I think it came out much better. Next time please discuss before editing someone's user page though. And I welcome and encourage all discussion about the content of it here, on my talk page. Please share your opinion of the content. Dream Focus 19:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Made a minor tweak. Can we leave it at that please? Black Kite 19:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Less scientific, but less likely to be misinterpreted I suppose. No need for me to put up a schematic of the human brain, and point out exactly what part of them is not developed properly, and how this means they all suck at math and all logic solving problems. Can't "think outside the box", as they say. Dream Focus 20:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dream, remove the insult, called "refactoring", remove your defense of the insult here, and apologize to Black Kite. >>>It is in your best interest to do this.<<< Give me permission and I will delete all of the insults, so you don't miss one. Then you can apologize profusely. Ikip (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Refactoring? Me and Black Kite worked out the problem with the discussion above, I not wording things properly, there some misunderstanding. Dream Focus 10:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion at Talk:Tom Tucker (Family Guy)

I've opened a merge discussion at the above-mentioned location. Please consider participating if you are interested. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!

WELCOME from a Article Rescue Squad member

Welcome to Article Rescue Squadron Dream Focus, a dynamic list of articles needing to be rescued, which changes with new updates, can be found here:

I look forward to working with you in the future. Ikip (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge straw poll

Heads up

RE: Wikipedia_talk:User_page#User:Dream_Focus

A prominent editor who deletes a lot of material from Wikipedia has your own user page in her sights, guess what her one and only solution is? [And if you guessed, leaving well enough alone, you would be wrong]

She will be stopping by to say hello soon, since I accidently posted this on her page first. :( Ikip (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to have some pretty prominent editors who delete a lot of material from Wikipedia on your talk page, so you must be doing something right. Ikip (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident

An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiScrubber (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I voted to keep. And for the deletion review I voted to restore it. It wasn't just a regular news item, this one had an important and notable event worthy of an article. Dream Focus 00:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:ZELDA OCARINA OF TIME 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:ZELDA OCARINA OF TIME 2.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I had it listed for The Legend of Zelda instead of The Legend of Zelda (series). Dream Focus 09:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

link wars

i agree with your point of view on wiki links, seems to me it's just another form of edit wars--Legeres (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of SDF-1 Macross

SDF-1 Macross has been nominated for deletion and you were involved in a previous AfD about a different article involving the same cartoon series. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDF-1 Macross. Thank you.--Sloane (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dog poop girl

"it was a historical and noteworthy event"? Someone's dog shitting on a subway train was a historical event? Please have a think about that concept. (Now you've had a think about it, have a look at the points on the DRV - whilst there's no problem with the event being mentioned in Internet vigilantism, it's not notable outside that context, with no sources that discuss it outside that context). Thanks, Black Kite 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It caused a large number of people to go online, and publicly shame someone for their actions. The cultural affect is that no one else would dare do the same thing, fearing the same response. That in itself is notable. And didn't most people say Keep? The consensus of the editors discussing this, not your own personal opinion, is what matters. Don't play God, and do whatever you want, ignoring the opinions of everyone else. That isn't what administrators are suppose to do, otherwise the AFD wouldn't existed at all. Dream Focus 22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You hit the nail right on the head - the single notable thing about the event is the cultural effect ... which is discussed in Internet vigilantism, which is where the information currently is. And that's exactly what administrators are supposed to do. Black Kite 23:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


History of quaternions

Hey there - the page is still being rewritten - as you have shown such an interest in it, why not jump in and give a hand improving the article? pablohablo. 23:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't know a thing about quaternions. But I don't like people moving against consensus and trying to delete something the overwhelming majority of people said to keep, thus the reason I was protesting before. Dream Focus 23:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly was deleted? pablohablo. 23:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything. One editor stated during the article for deletion discussion, after most people said keep, that it didn't matter what the rest voted, he'd delete it anyway. And that's what he did. After much debate, any many people speaking out on this, the article was allowed to stay. history of it starting at March 4th, and you can see at least 6 times when it was deleted, and then reverted, until finally a stub was placed there and people worked on it a bit. If the overwhelmingly majority of editors vote to keep something, believing it has the right to exists as an article, and by consensus the closing editor says keep, then an article should be kept. Dream Focus 23:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right. But the article has been (is being) rewritten, and bears little resemblance now to the article you're referring to that contained "valid information". So has any of that valid information been lost? pablohablo. 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has the exact same information. I just checked the history and compared it. All historical bits are kept, which is quite valid for this article. As for the rest, if some believe that part belongs elsewhere, so be it. Just no sense in deleting an entire article, when the topic is perfectly valid. Dream Focus 23:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are certainly right about not knowing anything about quaternions. pablohablo. 23:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to ARS!

Lifebuoy

Hi, Dream Focus, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles and content that have been nominated for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable, and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles and content to quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

Some points that may be helpful:
  • WikiProject Article rescue squadron's (ARS) main aim is to help improve Wikipedia articles and content. If someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification.
  • Sometimes we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Sometimes editors who are new to Wikipedia may perceive the deletion of "their" article as discouraging. Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages.
  • The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion.
  • Our primary work is improving Wikipedia articles and content. A more dynamic list with article links and descriptions are located at our rescue list.
  • If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves.
  • Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again — Welcome! ~~~~


March 2009

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. --neon white talk 22:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in regards Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Mail Letter

Did you have a look at Email, an existing article which covers this information in great detail? I would have voted a "keep" myself, but the subject already has an article... longer, more detailed, and better sourced. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep discussions on that AFD page please. I have it on my watch list, and just responded to two different post. Dream Focus 09:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:American Involvement in Haiti/Temp

Hi. The text you placed here is largely copied from the article itself and because of that it is in itself a copyright infringement (it includes some of the problematic text). We can't use copyrighted text on any space in Wikipedia, including talk pages and talk/temp pages, unless we have permission or unless it conforms to WP:NFC. I've blanked it as well for now rather than simply deleting it. I see you have not edited this since the 9th. Do you intend to work on this further? The matter has come ripe for closure at WP:CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had erased all the copyrighted stuff. I searched for the part with the date between quotation marks, and didn't find anything. Doesn't matter. I kept finding contradicting information when I went looking for information, and the sites I found seem to be a bit bias. One says a worker makes enough in a month to rent a shack, and that food cost too much, and then they are cheated out of their wages as often as possible. If that were all true, then they'd have less than 0 income, and would starve to death. Also, their current minimum wage is much higher than it previous was, so it is better than they'd make as farmers. The article has potential I suppose, its just hard to find information on it. They mention a study done by someone from a university, but I searched around and can't find proof that ever existed. Seems a bit odd. Anyway, delete it if you want to. Dream Focus 16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'll do so. If at some point somebody creates a clear article under the subject, so much the better. :) Thanks for your efforts to save it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer

Hi, you just removed a prod template from Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer. Your rational was WP:GHITS, which is specifically not a valid deletion argument. I have nominated the page for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer and your comments would be appreciated. Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That many people reading it, makes it notable as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, you won't find any official results until someone can determine what the proper Japanese title is, since it isn't what is listed there. I'm still searching for information about that. Dream Focus 18:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Sloane (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the rule is only if I reverted the same person. I reverted you last time, since you didn't have a reason to be removing the tag, you stating only your belief that the article was going to be deleted anyway, so it didn't matter. That is NOT a valid reason to remove the rescue tag. And you did not talk about it, or form a consensus. Two editors have stated it should be there. Dream Focus 02:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following actions are exceptions to the three-revert rule, and do not count as reverts under the rule's definition. 

   * Reverting obvious vandalism ... adding or removing tags

The only reason why anyone would be trying to delete rescue tag, is because they want the article deleted, and don't want anyone on the Rescue squad to come and help save it, as they did similar articles recently. The tag has a legitimate reason to be there, and you do not have the right to remove it. Dream Focus 02:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

I reported your continued reversions at the Administrators' noticeboard--Sloane (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. So I misunderstood the rules then? Others considered it vandalism also, that they kept trying to delete a tag, they had no right to, without legitimate reason. And since when are any rules absolute? Its all up to interpretation. It was a sincere edit, not disruption, that I did. Anyway, I'll be back in 24 hours, to finish my discussion elsewhere. The whole system is seriously flawed, wikilawyering defeating common sense. Dream Focus 23:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You got shampooed here. Removing a rescue template is remarkably lame, i.e. it's saying "I don't want it rescued, so, who cares if you do." Well, imagine if you tried removing an AfD template on the same premise. Ridiculous. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see he removed the tag again once I was banned. Glad you were there to revert his obvious vandalism. [3] Dream Focus 02:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are blocked, not banned. There is a big difference. Also, ironically, the editor who reported you above is himself edit warring over adding a template at here, so hopefully everyone will be addressed equally and fairly. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I wanted to thank you for your voice of support in the AfD article on The Motley Moose. It is most appreciated; I am glad someone took the time to actually look over the points presented! Cordially, 137.54.5.14 (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Want to delete something without anyone noticing and protesting? Try a merger!

There is no notice anywhere listing all the merger discussions. This includes merges which are 100% deletes! Not talking about the South Park episode bit, since they said they'll actually keep all the information on separate pages (and hopefully after that's done, no one will wait until no one is watching,and then delete 99% of their content because they think the article is too long). I'm talking about cases where a small group of friends, who post on each other's talk page all the time, get together, and vote 3 to 0, no one else around to notice, to "merge" articles for episodes, characters, or whatnot. They then go and erase these articles, putting a redirect in their place, with not one bit of information moved over. Or sometimes they remove 99% of a character page, and have just a token summary left to move over.

What we need is for every article out there to be placed in proper categories listings. And when something is nominated for a speedy delete, secret delete(forget what they are called), merger, or regular delete(through AFD), anyone who signed up for notification will be told. Otherwise, you can have just a very small number of people decide things, taking out the less popular series with ease.

I'd also like a tool that list all articles that were voted for in AFD as keep, that then got deleted anyway, replaced with a redirect. Dream Focus 00:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing deletion and a merger. They completely different processes, with a merger the article history is maintained whilst a deletion removes an entire article including it's history. --neon white talk 07:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.m-w.com/

  • merge
One entry found.
Function: verb
to become combined into one: to blend or come together without abrupt change <merging traffic>

synonyms see mix

Nothing is merged though. And shouldn't we go through the AFD process if the article is going to be deleted, with the exception of its history?

  • 'delete
One entry found.
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Latin deletus, past participle of delēre to wipe out, destroy

to eliminate especially by blotting out, cutting out, or erasing <delete a passage in a manuscript> <delete a computer file>

Dream Focus 15:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the rules of "...Merging — regardless of the amount of information kept — should always leave a redirect or, in some cases, a disambiguation page in place..." There is nothing about Deleting completely, just adding to an article that already exists --Legeres (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Shouldn't let them call it a merge then. That page gives a good clear definition of it, so I'll link to that next time. I argued before on various pages, that a redirect was not a merge, and that if not one bit of information was going to be copied over, then it wasn't a merge. Had another editor insist on calling it a merge though, refusing to listen to reason. Dream Focus 21:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top of the morning to you laddy, or whatever it is they are sterotyped as saying over there. Dream Focus 05:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re your edits to User talk:Sephiroth BCR

I would point out that account holders are given pretty much free range, within the rules, of what they wish to host on the account talkpage. If you feel that there is still some good reason to continue a discussion that has been archived, I suggest that you request the editor that it is returned. Another method would be to continue to post, referencing the archived discussion. It is considered very poor manners to edit other peoples' talkpages, outside of discussion or removal of vandalism, and I think it would be appropriate for you to undo your edit and then continue as suggested above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...I just saw this. :|
Dream Focus, I agree with LessHeard vanU, and have reverted as such. Sephiroth BCR deliberately archived it last night as a discussion that wasn't going anywhere. I agree with his assessment. Although I said I missed the developments, I did review it for myself (in catch-up) prior to making the comment on his talk page. Should Sephiroth BCR like to recommence those discussions, or have it reappear on this page, he will unarchive them at his discretion. In the meantime, on the condition you don't alter the comments made there, you may duplicate the comments onto your page here if you wish. Alternatively, perhaps even preferrably, the method specified above by LessHeard vanU will work very well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was a mistake, since it was still ongoing. But he did that on purpose? I'll copy it on over here then. Dream Focus 18:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Talkback

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

MuZemike 03:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Barbarain II cover art.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Barbarain II cover art.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Dream Focus 03:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for Manga

Seeing your interest in establishing notability in manga, I'm inviting you to take a look at and comment on User:NocturneNoir/Sandbox/Notability (manga). Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 21:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I use those arguments in the AFD all the time to try to save manga, sometimes succeeding. Depends on who is around the day to vote. Tried discussing it on the notability book guideline page before, and nothing came of it. Dream Focus 22:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dream Focus#How bad editors try to delete things

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you've got stuff like this on your user page? Would you be happy with someone else writing a section on "How bad editors try to get non-notable articles kept at AfD"? Black Kite 11:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that bother me at all? I have the right to state my opinions about the wikipedia, and so I did. If any editor did this, and some in fact clearly do, in my opinion they are a bad editor. Such behavior should not be tolerated. Dream Focus 11:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are NOT allowed to characterize others as bad editors - that contravenes WP:NPA and is disruptive (exactly as the opposite would be). Remove it, please. Black Kite 11:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There. I changed it, so it doesn't call anyone bad. It now is called "What I consider horrible editing practices", so isn't attacking anyone, just stating criticism of certain practices people go through Dream Focus 11:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It's not that you're not allowed to give personal opinions here, it's only when those opinions are negative and you present them as facts that it becomes a problem. Black Kite 11:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? Anyone can consider the opinions of someone negative, if they disagree with them. And it is a fact that certain editors use such tactics. Dream Focus 12:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that might've been unclear. What I mean is that it's perfectly OK to say "I consider this a bad editing practice" (opinion), but it's not OK to say "People who do this are bad editors" (opinion presented as fact). See the difference? Black Kite 12:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't say people who do bad things are bad people, only criticize their actions as bad. Alright then. State your negative opinion about an action, but not the people who do it. Understood. Dream Focus 12:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a personal attack issue; it's an appalling assumption of bad faith; tweaking the title does nothing about that. Jack Merridew 12:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I criticize the methods used by some to delete an article, against consensus. Are you suggesting someone who does this, isn't doing it on purpose, or didn't know better? If I said that sending the same article to AFD twice from the same editor was wrong, would that be assuming bad faith? I've seen that happen before. Or would it lead to a bad faith assumption that this person is just trying to go against consensus from previous AFD, and keeps trying until they got the result they wanted? If an article was deleted, and then someone who voted Keep tried to recreate it, and the information was exactly the same as before, wouldn't that be wrong? Does whether or not you agree with the actions being criticized, or the person using them, influence what you believe is right or wrong to post criticism of? Dream Focus 12:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting 'articles' that don't reasonably meet sound inclusion criteria improves the project. You seem to miss that the Evil Deletionist® Cabal is seeking the improvement of the project. Have you noticed that no one is proposing to delete Asia, The Canterbury Tales, or Jainism? Japanese porn twins, ephemeral dross such as TV shows, and weapons lists for (what?) video games are another matter; much of this sort of stuff amounts to little more than silverfish damaging the project as a whole. Jack Merridew 12:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the article is not relevant. You don't delete something simply because you don't like it. If you don't believe something should be allowed on wikipedia, then change the policy to say no episode list, no porn, etc. Saying sometimes its alright, and sometimes it isn't, is just wrong. A significant number of page views for wikipedia are sex related though, with popular culture getting more than half. I don't recall where they keep the stats though, but it is interesting to see. And you can't improve the project by deleting articles, simply because of some unreasonable guideline, which discriminates against many types of media which simply don't get reviewed at all. I protest the unfairness. Dream Focus 12:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting content that is not appropriate for inclusion always improves the project; no exceptions. If the goal was to focus on including content that vast numbers of people simply want, we would be all about uploading copyvios off porn sites. This, however, is an encyclopedia, not a porn site or fan site. Wikipedia discriminates against content all the time per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; deal with it. Jack Merridew 08:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do NOT improve the project by erasing stuff the vast majority of people want to read. You should not remove all the fancruft/trivia, if the overwhelming majority of people enjoy reading it. And until someone in charge of wikipedia, or a vote of the majority of the people who use wikipedia, says that certain things shouldn't be allowed, then I see no reason to delete it. Any guideline that is enacted by a small number of people, is not to be taken seriously. Wikipedia used to have trivia sections on almost every article, and no need for any notable reference in a third party media source to justify its existence, we using common sense instead. Then a small number of people go and change the rules, and began deleting everything they don't like and get away with removing. All the fancruft once very common in articles, was removed, leaving many to be brief, boring bits of information you could easily find from the back of the box the media came in, without anything anyone would actually want to come here and read. Dream Focus 10:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has always required verifiability from it's conception i believe. Nothing has changed in that respect. An article cannot achieve guideline status without a wide community consensus, it has to go to the village pump. People can't just write things and declare them a guideline and in the same way articles cannot simply be deleted without discussion. The process is not perfect but if you stufy Wikipedia:Deletion policy you'll find it works fine the vast majority of times. --neon white talk 02:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which only goes to prove that you're missing two main points - firstly, this is an encyclopedia. It isn't a fan wiki, somebody's personal website, a collection of trivia, or more importantly original research. For the material you mention, there are better places for it to be - dedicated wikis for nearly every fictional universe possible, where people can write about such things in excruciating detail. Secondly, you don't get to ignore guidelines or policies because you don't agree with them. If "only a small number of people" actually agreed with them, they would have been changed a long time ago. There are often discussions about such things - see WP:FICT for example. We have had votes involving many people about many guidelines and policies; they are not set in stone. If you want them changed, start a centralised discussion - see WP:CENT. (Starting discussions like this one isn't going to get many views, as was pointed out to you. Black Kite 10:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends on the article, to be honest. There can be reasons for sending an article to AfD a number of times. For example, there might be a feeling at the first AfD that the article is capable of becoming notable, and it is therefore kept. However, a year later, if it hasn't improved, it might be felt that the first AfD got it wrong. Or accepted notability might change over time - for example, there is much more community will to delete marginally notable BLPs these days, after many problems in the past. The other problem I think here is that you're not quite grasping the concept of "consensus". Wikipedia is not a democracy, and AfDs are not a vote. For example, an AfD with three Keep votes, each of which gives a good policy-based reason to keep, and ten Delete votes which are all "Delete, this isn't notable" might well be closed as Keep and the closing admin would have a good reason for doing so. I've noticed recently that you've stated that articles are saved at AfD "if they've got enough fans" - well, whilst that might be the case sometimes, the number of fans doesn't make a difference if they can't give any other reason that "I like this article" for it to be kept. Works both ways. Black Kite 12:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some episode articles are kept, even without anything to prove them notable, while others for series with less fans around to protest, are deleted. Simple as that. And what is this about renominating something if you thought the AFD got it wrong? Can you recreate an article a year after it was deleted, because you disagree with the AFD? And to clarify, I mean the exact same article, not something that has been changed at all. Dream Focus 12:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Quite often you will see AFDs closed with a comment like "giving marginal article a chance to improve". If (in say a year's time) the article hasn't improved, another AfD would be perfectly in order. There's no problem with multiple AfDs as long as it isn't done disruptively, because sometimes AfD gets it wrong. Don't forget, there's always WP:DRV as a check when it does. Black Kite 13:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tried to explain several times that merge and delete are complete different processes but it never seems to register. --neon white talk 02:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding wikia

I have been working on transwiking as seen at User_talk:A_Nobody/Deletion_discussions#Articles_to_have_transwikied. If you are aware of any other wikis that I can include, please let me know. I am hoping we have a list wiki somewhere. There is a List Universe, but it isn't a wiki. A Deletionpedia exists as well, but I don't think we can request transwikis to there? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

Compressed for easier viewing, the mistake I made quoting something about the T-shirt, and the failure of proper communications to figure out exactly what people were complaining about right away. Note I apologized before the idiotic 12 hour ban(and yes, telling someone at 9pm, that they are banned until 9am the next morning, is very lame, since I'd be sleeping most of that time anyway)

Arundhati Roy

Hi, I'd like to restore this edit. Please see this about "Roy's List" then this about the edit. Thanks, 65.246.126.130 (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I looked through the Guardian article, and it is interesting to see the list of all the nations the CIA, or whoever, secretly bombed over the years, but does she say anything else? Communism is bad for business, that the reason businesses opposed it, and didn't want it happening in nations they were using for cheap labor or exploiting for farm produce or natural resources. Politicians are almost always put into office by major corporations, and thus would appoint others to do their secret bombing campaigns for them. Where does she state what you are claiming? I didn't read through the entire article, it a bit longer than my attention span unfortunately. Dream Focus 22:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you just check off the years she lists as "Bombing:Yes" or "Bombing:No" you see it; check the pattern at the bottom of the talk page. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Meridian merge

Hello, there is a proposal to merge an article you recently discussed here. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About 3RR...

You do know that you file a complaint if the editor made more than 3 reverts within a 24-hour period, right? Kinda odd that you didn't note Edokter's proximal edits that actually go further than mine, and don't have the enefit of our policies to back them up. I will ask you, politely, to withdraw the 3RR complaint (a complaint that you failed to notify me of, btw). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on your talk page just before filing the complaint. And I didn't notice it wasn't within a 24 hour period. And Edokter was reverting your vandalism, so it wasn't a problem. Dream Focus 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and presume you an extremely new user; otherwise, I would have to file a complaint for accusing me of vandalism. Maybe you should learn a LOT more about the policies you think you are enforcing. As well, you should learn to count reverts before filing at AN/3RR, as its considered disruptive to accuse me of violating the 3RR rule when I've actually only reverted twice. Consider yourself warned. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are a very rude person. And I didn't do anything you can file a report on. Dream Focus 22:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring noticeboard

Thank you. I hadn't noticed the time when reporting it. I'll be glad to have someone watch it though. The same person erasing the same exact information half dozen times or so, seems a bit disruptive. Dream Focus 22:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:You didn't fill out all the information for a proper AFD...

You placed this on my talk page:"The CBS Mandate ‎you nominated for deletion, has a red link pointing to the discussion for the AFD. You need to fill in whatever information it tells you to, so that something appears there." I quote the template I put on the CBS Mandate page:"Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on Talk:CBS_Mandate. I did leave my reason for deletion on the article's talkpage." 24.12.89.226 (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are suppose to place it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CBS_Mandate_(2nd_nomination)&action=edit&redlink=1 as well, otherwise you can't have a discussion. That's how its done. Anyway, an editor just took it down, so it doesn't matter now. Dream Focus 20:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Super Cauldron.png

Thanks for uploading File:Super Cauldron.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. I thought clicking that it was the cover of a game's box was enough, but apparently you have to fill in the standard useless information. Dream Focus 03:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

You are canvassing: "Important discussions sometimes happen at remote locations in Wikipedia, so editors might be tempted to publicize this discussion by mass-mailing other Wikipedians. Even if the goal is not to influence the outcome of the debate, indiscriminately sending announcements to uninvolved editors is considered "talk-page spamming" (or e-mail spamming) and therefore disruptive." I strongly recommend that you withdraw all talk page messages. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked. It isn't canvassing as long as you tell everyone who posted there. Administrators agreed. Canvassing is only if I contacted those who voted a certain way. Dream Focus 04:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Dream Focus on this one. He notified both editors who argued to keep as well as delete, i.e. he notified those with whom he disagreed and who are likely to argue opposite of him. As such, in this case it is not canvassing. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the specific passage that I cited. It has nothing to do with tone and everything to do with attracting attention, especially when the consensus was not going to be in his favor. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The chart says it qualifies as a friendly notice, and is thus allowed. There was clearly Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open Transparency. Not a problem at all. I was going to do this earlier, but was trying to find the right tool, and got distracted, then just went ahead and did it by hand. Dream Focus 04:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree that there was limited posting... I've seen a few dozen proposed mergers, and they don't even get a half dozen opinions involved. The involvement with this one is pretty hefty, IMO. :P —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Limited as to the number of people contacted, was limited to that list. It wasn't just randomly posting all over the place, trying to get noticed everywhere. Dream Focus 04:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Erik on this; you were canvassing, and the admin in question did not in fact agree with your behavior, and Protonk told you as much. Even after that, you go ahead and continue to canvass? Wait, don't do anything for a little bit; I want to pop some popcorn and get a seat with a good view of the coming dramahz. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"and you appear to not be interested in canvassing per se, I don't see the merit in continuing this discussion. Protonk (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)" Did you read that part? We worked it out. As long as everyone is contacted, it is not canvassing. Dream Focus 10:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, Arcayne stop please stop. I don't see any outrage when editors who support deletion and merging such as User:New_Age_Retro_Hippie who did the exact same thing that Dream Focus does,Talk:Tom_Tucker_(Family_Guy)#So_we_need_a_merge_discussion, in which Protonk got an message to: User_talk:Protonk#Merge_discussion_at_Talk:Tom_Tucker_.28Family_Guy.29. There is no canvas violation here so please leave Dream focus alone. Why not address this on Protunk's page, instead of making the drama spill over to his talk page?

Thank you. Maybe you need an advocate Dream, someone who officially can help you avoid this harrassment, who can counsel you on and off wiki? Ikip (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, thank you, but its alright. Maybe he just read the first part, and didn't bother reading farther down to the part we worked it out. It happens. Dream Focus 15:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from: User Talk:Ikip:
You'll have to excuse me for not being aware of the extensive discussion on Protonk's talk page; I have not encountered Dream Focus before the popular culture AfD. Regardless of others' opinions, I still disagree with his action to contact those involved with that AfD, not because their opinions don't matter, but because the merge discussion already had a healthy number of editors weighing in to shape consensus. The talk page spamming, like I quoted from the guideline, seemed disruptive. Anyway, what's done is done, and I don't plan to pursue the matter anymore, so I take offense to your accusation of harassing him, especially considering that I have not met him before. I plan to move on and see how the film's cultural impact can best be presented. Thanks. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize Erik, I refactored my comments. Thank you for letting me know your concerns. I sincerely hope these modifications address some of the concerns you have. Best wishes in your editing.Ikip (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on an AfD?

"Does anyone else actually believe that this book got to the bestsellers list not because of customers buying it, but by trickery from the publishing company?"

Was that really approprite for wikipedia? Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was. It is a perfectly legitimate question. I've never heard anyone else suggest such a thing, and it seems absolutely ridiculous to think anyone does that, other than certain religious cults. If a publishing company was going to do that, wouldn't they do it with all their books then? This book was the end of a rather long running series. A series that wouldn't have had hundreds of books published in it, unless the sales were significant. His unproven conspiracy theory seems absolutely ridiculous to me, so I was wondering if anyone else believed it or not. Dream Focus 05:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be suprised what stunts PR/marketing companies get up to. But in the end it's none of our concern. --neon white talk 13:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, going back and re-reading the section, I now see that I overlooked Collectonian's statement. I appoligise for any inconvienience, please accept my appoligies. Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out with Dragons of Summer Flame‎; we have a number of similar articles which can use some work so that no one need ever feel the need to nominate them for deletion. :)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs)

Glad to help. Is there a place where all articles of this type are watched over, people able to easily find things that need their attention? Dream Focus 18:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where do people find out about an editor running for administrator?

moved from ikip talk page.

Where do people find out about an editor running for administrator? There doesn't seem to be any general announcement anywhere, so is it all by word of mouth, or is it posted someplace? Dream Focus 17:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, look to the right of where you posted (on ikip talk page), copy and paste: {{Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/RfA_Report}} on your user page for updated list, this is the template that the page Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard uses. The actual full argument pages for each active canidate have been transcribed on this page: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Current_nominations_for_adminship. It is important to keep updated on these potential admins. Ikip (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! So that's what that thing was. Alright, I'll add that to my watch list. Dream Focus 18:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet you can copy and paste: {{Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/RfA_Report}} on your user page. :) Ikip (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does everyone fill about this question being asked of all those running for administrators?

  • If the overwhelming majority of people said to keep an article, but you felt it didn't meet all the guidelines, would you delete it anyway? Is the opinion of a closing administrator all that counts, or are the opinions of everyone equally valid, and thus you willing to let them decide the fate of an article through consensus? Is there any possible reason to have a discussion at all, if administrators decide outright what should be deleted, never considering keeping it, regardless of the will of others? Policies must be followed always, according to the wikipedia rules, but the guidelines are just suggestions, and can be ignored according to wikipedia law. If the consensus of the people in the AFD, say to ignore the guidelines, and Keep an article, would you accept this? Or do you believe that all guidelines should be considered absolute law? Dream Focus 02:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if I was at RfA, my reply would be "that's seven questions, three of which are the same question, and far too confusing - please rewrite it". However, I'll have a look at your questions anyway.
    • One thing I will say that you are bringing up again in the above question three times, and also in a comment you made recently at an RfA, is that you still don't seem to grasp that AfD is not a vote. Still, here we go...
      • " If the overwhelming majority of people said to keep an article, but you felt it didn't meet all the guidelines, would you delete it anyway?". I can only think of two circumstances - (a) in an RfA which contained a majority of Keep votes which provided no policy-based reason, and a minority of Delete votes which gave good reasoning, and even then I might go "no consensus" unless the issue was particularly obvious. (b) Where an AfD has been disrupted by sockpuppetry and other vote-rigging.
      • " Is the opinion of a closing administrator all that counts?" Clearly not, or we wouldn't bother having a discussion. The function of the closing admin is to interpret that discussion in the light of consensus and strength of argument.
      • " or are the opinions of everyone equally valid?" No, they're not. The opinions of someone who types "Keep it's notable" or "Delete not notable" are clearly a lot less valid that someone who provides a well-argued policy-based argument, and any admin should give such comments a lot less weight, or none at all. Again - AfD is not a vote.
      • " (are) you willing to let them decide the fate of an article through consensus?". See above. Consensus is only part of it. AfD is not a vote.
      • "Is there any possible reason to have a discussion at all, if administrators decide outright what should be deleted, never considering keeping it, regardless of the will of others?" I think I've answered that in the three above answers (it's actually the same question - if you're thinking of posting it at RfA, I'd remove this part)
      • "If the consensus of the people in the AFD, say to ignore the guidelines, and Keep an article, would you accept this?" That's the same question again - consensus is only part of it, strength of argument must be considered, AfD is not a vote. Again, I'd remove this part as you're just repeating yourself.
      • "Or do you believe that all guidelines should be considered absolute law?". Policies are, apart from in very exceptional circumstances, treated as law on Wikipedia. Guidelines are just that - guidelines, but you'd still have to have a very good reason for not following them. For example, commenting "Keep - isn't notable according to the guidelines, but it's an interesting article" at an AfD is likely to be roundly discounted. Black Kite 09:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about this [12]? No third party media coverage whatsoever, but it is a bestselling novel. Some say no references so you have to delete it, others say its a bestseller so keep it. How about, the notability guidelines are stupid, bias, and unfair, and should be ignored? Why does the opinion of a couple of reviewers in a newspaper or magazine count, and not the opinion of a large number of fans? What about types of media which don't get reviewed, ever? Every major movie that is produced by Hollywood gets reviewed, good or bad, while most novels, manga/comics, do not get reviewed anywhere these days. Can that be a good reason to ignore the requirement to have third party media coverage to establish notability, instead of what the majority of people in the AFD consider clear evidence of a large fan base? Dream Focus 14:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see Collectonian's point there (let's face it, you would expect more coverage of a supposedly best-selling novel) but I think this is an exception. I would certainly close that AfD as Keep at the moment, though with so little coverage it may actually be better - in Wikipedia terms - to cover it as part of a much better article about the series, with a section on this book. The reasoning would be "what is the better Wikipedia article - one about the series with lots of sources, citations and a good explanation of the plot of the series as a whole, or lots of stubs about individual books which are little more than plot summaries"? If I'm reading an article, I'd rather see all the info in one place rather than having to jump around between articles. So I can see both sides here. Black Kite 17:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where else is the information at? If you just like one line on a page mentioning something, that's already there. If you want something to read, you need an article for it. And it'll expand in time. That's what stub articles do... sometimes. We don't need no stinking references. Dream Focus 18:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. WP:V (which is a policy) demands references. That isn't a problem for the example we've discussed above, but it may well be for other articles. Black Kite 00:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is. Yep. That includes websites. That verifies it exists, and that's all that matters to satisfy the policy. If its a webcomic, then you can verify it exist by linking to its website. To prove its notable, is up to consensus, people deciding whether its notable for being on a bestsellers list, or having 100,000 hits on Google when searching for blogs, websites, and forums where people talked about it, or having been mentioned in some obscure magazine, or reviewed on a website that gets far more hits on any given day than that magazine has subscribers. One you prove something exist, no matter what it is, verification policy is requirements are met, and people can then decide if its notable using their own common sense, ignoring the notability guidelines entirely. Dream Focus 00:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to have a problem with notability. Proving something exists is utterly irrelevant - that's not what WP:V is for. If everything that could be proved to exist was worthy of a Wikipedia article, we'd have ground to a halt years ago. And you still seem to have this weird conception that some random consensus is what we base notability on. We don't. We base it on notability. Black Kite 01:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I use to raise rabbits. When Christianity was spreading in the old Roman empire, they said hey, you can keep your holidays, but now we dedicate them for a new purpose. So, the fertility festival, celebrated by rabbits and eggs, the symbols of fertility, was rededicated to the resurrection of Jesus. Romans also have in their history a now extinct and thus unprovable species of rabbit that actually laid eggs. I find that more believable than the beaver duck crossbreed that has fur, but lays eggs, that the Australians still claim exist to this day. Dream Focus 02:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google search

Hi, Dream Focus. Just noticed your Village Pump proposal, and I think your Google search may not be doing quite what you want. I tried it and it didn't pull up the "fancruft"-tagged Wiki articles. Shouldn't it be more like THIS? This seems to pull up the articles your search wants to find. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

Hello, Dream Focus. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talk • contribs) 05:05, 14 April 2009

You forgot to sign your name, TheFarix. I see some familiar names have posted there already. No surprise there. Dream Focus 10:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

See Trinity

Essentially all traditional christian religious groups, not just Catholics, believe that Jesus is God, though they express it in a rather complicated way--see the above article. The Unitarians don't , and this is their distinctive belief among Protestant groups. Just fyi, re God in Fiction. DGG (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, I was raised a Methodist, and that's not how it works. Jesus is the son of God, but he is not God. You pray to God, not Jesus, they taught as two separate entities. Dream Focus 09:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's time you re=read the first chapter of John. DGG (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Would you support me here, please? Debresser (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just posted there. Didn't notice that Honorverse article had also been nominated as well. I see someone has told you that might count as canvassing, which means bringing attention to an article someone might want to save, instead of letting it get deleted without anyone noticing. Dream Focus 14:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mighty <div> tag

Hi - I was going to explain what I was doing on your talk page, but I had to go and do something else. Still, you seem to have figured it out! pablohablo. 20:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what you did, and just copied it, then added how to on the wikipedia page about that sort of thing. Thanks for your help. Dream Focus 00:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thankspam

Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark 22:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa

April 2009

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

Oh get over yourself. I did not call an actual person a fool, saying only that whoever went and nominated it for 7th time would be a fool, do to their actions. Its only against the rules if I insult an actual person, not someone who doesn't exist yet. Dream Focus 16:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I misread it as "the same fool". I suppose the warning for WP:NPA in this instance isn't apt, although your ongoing antagonism and insults -- even if vaguely thrown -- certainly run counter to WP:CIVIL. --EEMIV (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening to have someone blocked is antagonistic and insulting. Next time read things carefully, before tossing out a threat like that. It isn't something you should do so lightly. On another note, would you believe it is antagonistic and insulting to constantly go around trying to delete articles that are less than one day old, or have already been voted Keep several times already, ignoring consensus and trying to delete something people said Keep(this is called a merge, even if nothing is merged, you just have to put a redirect there), accusing someone of nonsense constantly, mentioning the same idiotic examples of something even though its already been discussed and worked through(the canvasing nonsense), etc.? Have you read through everything on the most recent trial of character? I would like some comments on specific examples, and whether you believe they should bring up these same exact things, every chance they get. Also, was it wrong for me to ask my question here? Two editors who are accusing me seem to be very against me being able to do this. Dream Focus 18:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

testing out this subpage thing

User:Dream_Focus/Draft of article User:Dream_Focus/About me

It works. Interesting. When someone goes to create an article, they should link them to the policy rules, and tell them also how to do this, to gather everything they need to defend it against people with nothing better to do than to casually destroy other people's work. Dream Focus 04:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They already do - when a user tries to create a page, they are linked to Wikipedia:Your first article, like this. Black Kite 12:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider creating the article first in your user space As a registered user, you have your own user space. You can start your new article there, on a subpage; you can get it in shape, take your time, ask other editors to help work on it, and only move it into the "live" Wikipedia once it is ready to go. To create your own subpage, see here. When your new article is ready for "prime time", you can move it into the main area.
No link to tell people how straight away. Need to say User:Your_name_here/draft of article straight away. No one is going to bother clicking around to different pages, and reading things through, before starting an article, as evident by the fact that they currently don't. Need to tell them directly. Dream Focus 14:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Let me have a look at that ... Black Kite 15:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing talkpage sections

I knew I had seen an easier way to do this somewhere.

Collapsing talkpage sections
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What you do

place a {{hat|type your title in here}} template at the top of the section and a {{hab}} at the bottom. Less effort than what you have been doing perhaps. pablohablo. 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh cool! Same results though, just gives the message not to edit it. Dream Focus 16:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes - pretty much the same but it aligns left by default, which is what you wanted. pablohablo. 19:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the current rules about fictional characters

Apparently a decision was made by a small number of people, which could affect a vast number of articles. Previously articles were saved if the fictional character was found in more than one source. But, as brought up in Malus_Darkblade recently, it seems it now says that the countless thousands of articles for any fictional character, should be deleted. Anyone feel like discussing that with me? How many people decided this? Should such a small number of people decide something so great? They didn't like the character articles, so changed it, so they now had an excuse to delete them outright. Of course I've been seeing character articles sent to AFD for months now, sometimes they being saved, and sometimes not. Dream Focus 09:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the current rules about fictional characters

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANotability_(fiction)&diff=282794101&oldid=282782136 Apparently a decision was made by a small number of people, on April 9th, which could affect a vast number of articles. Previously articles were saved if the fictional character was found in more than one source. But, as brought up in Malus_Darkblade recently, it seems it now says that the countless thousands of articles for any fictional character, should be deleted. Anyone feel like discussing that with me? Notice how few people decided this, against the protests of others? Should such a small number of people decide something so great? They didn't like the character articles, so changed it, so they now had an excuse to delete them outright. Of course I've been seeing character articles sent to AFD for months now, sometimes they being saved, and sometimes not.

The most important part that has been deleted is:

  • Importance of the fictional work: To justify articles on individual elements, the fictional work from which they come must have produced significant artistic impact, cultural impact, or general popularity. This is shown when the work (not the element) exceeds the relevant notability guidelines.
  • Role within the fictional work: The element must be an important element, and its importance must be verifiable. The importance of characters and episodes can be demonstrated through the use of primary or secondary sources, while the importance of other elements must be validated in independent secondary sources.

Dream Focus 09:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Please don't WP:SPAM your straw polls to unrelated but supposedly sympathetic to yourviewpoint projects, as you did here[13]. Fram (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about not ever seeing that part there before, are rather surprising. It isn't spam, since I'm not advertising something, such as adding something new, but instead restoring something that affects all of us. And I hope everyone goes to [14] and participates on this epic change for wikipedia, since thousands of character articles will be destroyed if we don't add that back in. Dream Focus 10:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now read, thanks to other people, that this was the revised version of the three-prong test. I had only commented on the original one, which had quite different wording. Niether of them even got any consensus, so reintroducing text which never was in an accepted guideline anyway is no use. And if it affects all of us, you should post it at the village pump, not at a specific group of mostly inclusionist editors. That is spamming, pure and simple. Fram (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to this elsewhere. I made a mistake, it not a guideline, there not being one for fiction, it just a suggested guideline. Had it been a major change in a guideline which would result in the deletion of thousands of articles, then an organization based on rescuing articles should be told. Anyway, it appears that its all down to consensus whenever someone tries to delete a character page now, they able to wipe out all of them, depending on who is around at the time to defend them, and who the closing editor is. Dream Focus 12:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non, they should still not have been told. They are there to make sure that no articles are deleted which could, with improvement, be made according to the policies and guidelines. They are not there to make the guidelines so that no articles get deleted. This is a completely different approach and not the purpose of the ARS at all. And most character pages would not get deleted now (or anytime in the recent past), they would be kept for notable characters, or merged for others, just like it always was in the past few years. Fram (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some do not consider any characters notable unless they receive mention in a third party media source. They vote delete every time, without a moment's consideration. There have been character pages deleted with only two of the three people that showed up, saying delete. Some try to "merge" all character pages into one lump, as a "compromise". There is no notability guideline that allows you to keep them, just because some believe them notable. It all comes down to whoever is around at the time, to participate in the AFD. Dream Focus 16:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit war from two reverts?

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Clone Republic. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --EEMIV (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you twice, and asked that you wait until we could get a third opinion on our disagreement, before you go and delete that again. Stop harassing/bullying me with idiotic warning tags. And did you read the text you keep deleting? How can you understand the series, without knowing those key aspects? Dream Focus 10:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
The Defender of the Wiki may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes.

Dream Focus, thank you again for your valiant efforts, and being the first person to defend me on ANI. Your efforts are tireless and brave, and I appreciate all of your hard work and dedication. Once you refine the way you interact with editors, you can be an admin someday. You are a true asset to wikipedia, thank you, thank you, thank you. Ikip (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly clarified your proposal

I boldly clarified your proposal. I hope you don't mind. Ikip (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. The tool I used before, but can't remember, listed things in order of contributions, whoever did the most text added was first. Didn't subtract things removed though, since that isn't relevant. I can't find it in my bookmarks, and don't remember which one it was. If you want to post this somewhere else as well, go for it. The only thing of importance, is that we get it done. Dream Focus 18:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to the page you are talking about. Ikip (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That link is for who did the most edits. I was thinking of the one that counts how much text each editor added. I used it before, but can't seem to find it. Dream Focus 19:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will email you my plethoria of tools, it is probably in there somewhere. Ikip (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am now using you as a cautionary tale of what not to do when arguing with editors, when I warn other editors. email now...Ikip (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got distracted by other things. I see consensus seems to favor my proposal. Poll Now where do we post this at? I think someone posted a link somewhere, but I can't seem to find it. Way too many pages to keep track of. I think the points I made will be enough to convince most to accept this. Dream Focus 23:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft template

Hi - I have substituted the fancruft template. This because the template not only displays on your page, it also is designed to sort articles into Category:Articles with trivia sections. It isn't designed to work on user pages. pablohablo. 13:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. As long as people can still see it. Seeing how you did that, I decided to play around, and make my own variation tags. That would be funny to see them used instead. Maybe on the wikia at least. Dream Focus 14:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can see what code any template produces by substing it: instead of {{fancruft}} I typed {{subst:fancruft}} so that when the page is read, the contents of the template are loaded into the page - it's the same principle as typing four tildes and getting your signature. pablohablo. 14:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources

If you have time, I'd appreciate your looking in at Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources and either advise or contribute. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. I only clicked a few links, but those seem notable. They aren't trying to sell anything they review, and have a nice easy to read layout. Rotten Tomatoes is already used as a legitimate source for other things, as is Ain't It Cool News. As long as each website has a fair number of original reviews for things, with valid information, then there is no reason why any reasonable person would object. Dream Focus 21:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy links to fight off future harassment

Notifying interested people

Wikipedia:AFDHOWTO#Notifying_interested_people:

Notifying substantial contributors to the article

While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion.

Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may use these neutrally worded notification templates:

  • For creators who are totally new users: {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} ~~~~
  • For creators: {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} ~~~~
  • For contributors or established users: {{subst:Adw|Article title}} ~~~~
  • For an article you did not nominate: {{subst:AFDNote|Article title}} ~~~~

Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#AfD Wikietiquette:

...But if you are proposing deletion of an article, you can send a friendly notice to those who contributed significantly to it and therefore might disagree with you.

Place a notification on significant pages that link to nomination

Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination states:

"Place a notification on significant pages that link to your nomination, to enable those with related knowledge to participate in the debate."


Ikip (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

I am just starting this page: User:Ikip/p, a straw poll for all ARS members to comment in.

I welcome you to comment and contribute. Ikip (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dream_Focus&oldid=288555481"