User talk:Dream Focus

Wikipedia ads	file info – #193

Archives
	♫♫♫♫♫ Dream Focus
	Conflicts
	Interaction with others
	Bilateral discussions
	storage
	Whoops.
	Barnstars, kittens, cookies, and holiday greetings
	This user believes in the power of the Easter Bunny.
	This user would like to remind you to always brush your teeth, so you don't get severe cavities as I have.
	This user greatly enjoyed the Ultima series up to Ultima 7(downhill from there).

inclThis user is an inclusionist.

This user rescues articles for the Article Rescue Squadron.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 17 years, 11 months and 24 days.

Dream Focus Talk Page

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

Made a minor tweak. Can we leave it at that please? Black Kite 19:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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: Articles tagged for deletion and rescue I look forward to working with you in the future. Ikip (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)
  • 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)

What about this [1]? 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

April 2009

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

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

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

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

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)

• 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)
• 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)

I see your point. Let me have a look at that ... Black Kite 15:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

Oh cool! Same results though, just gives the message not to edit it. Dream Focus 16:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

yes - pretty much the same but it aligns left by default, which is what you wanted. pablo_hablo. 19:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Boldly clarified your proposal

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

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)

I added a link to the page you are talking about. Ikip (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

I will email you my plethoria of tools, it is probably in there somewhere. Ikip (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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. pablo_hablo. 13:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. pablo_hablo. 14:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

May 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nagatachō Strawberry. 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. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, consensus was to keep. Check [the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nagatachou_Strawberry AFD] and it closed as KEEP. And both I and the only other editor other than you who talked about it, agreed that the German magazine was a notable third party media source. The article is clearly notable. Stop moving against consensus, and trying to delete it, and don't call it a merge if not one sentence is going to be merged either. Dream Focus 18:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are at 3RR, dont revert again, Collectionian will not hestiate to report you. Ikip (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I know. I watch things. People that do tags like this usually just like to try to intimidate others to have their way. Dream Focus 16:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

They certainly do — [2] [3]. It's a common technique for disruptive editors to edit-war up to the point of 3rr then disengage so that the opponent reverts once too often. It's particularly effective if a tag-team is employed.[4] It's a cynical and manipulative gaming of the system, but it doesn't seem to be what Collectonian was doing here. pablo_hablo. 15:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Commpare with this,[5] with Black Kite advertising that you comments are "clueless" Ikip (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Strengths of arguments in favor of keeping?

It appears you're well-versed on this subject and have a lot of experience with these types of issues.... if you have a moment, can you take another look at this page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lenora_Claire and tell me what our strongest argument is in favor of keeping this article on Wikipedia? Thanks. Dogtownclown (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I just went and added a reason after reading through some references on her article page. She gets mentioned in many news sources, and is featured in a bestselling novel. Both of those things make her notable, based on the third party media reference suggested guideline for notability. Dream Focus 03:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input... I thought maybe I was going crazy or missing something! Dogtownclown (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Some people just decide they don't like something, and without giving it a second thought, try to delete it. Getting through to these people, is rather difficult. Whether something is kept or not, depends entirely on whoever is around at the time, who decides to participate, it going either way. Dream Focus 16:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

archiving now

Just archived some things. Instead of generic archive page, I'll put things in pages that have proper titles for what sort of things I store there. Some of the long conflicts I put here. Keep sorting things into side pages until main talk page isn't as long. Dream Focus 15:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Its a good start. Got to figure out how much I need to shift over, and what goes where. I moved over 100,000 bytes of stuff over, so that's enough for now. Dream Focus 16:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dream_Focus/whoops for the automatic bots and a few other things. Dream Focus 11:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Rugrats characters - Please reconsider!

There's no way Rugrats is of more importance than SpongeBob SquarePants. All of the SpongeBob SquarePants characters' articles have been merged into the list of characters pages. And besides, All Grown Up! is NOT a hit series. Also, SpongeBob SquarePants and The Fairly OddParents are also major works. If the decision is not to delete, I will restore articles to individual SpongeBob and Fairly OddParents characters. Marcus2 (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

They should be restored. The only character pages ever get deleted, is because there aren't enough people around at the time to notice and protest. They constantly try to delete things from the Simpsons and South Park, but fail. One Simpsons page was nominated 6 times for AFD, and hordes of people voted Keep, so it was kept all 6 times. I'm sorry other stuff got deleted, I would've said something if I had known at the time, but the people that nominate things for deletion usually go through and nominate a rather large number of things at once, daily in some cases, and its hard to keep track of it all. Too much stuff at the AFD right now to sort through. Consider joining the Rescue Squadron, and you can help monitor things, bring attention to articles that should be saved, and get help in saving them. Dream Focus 16:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. By the way, thank you for informing and enlightening me on the issue at hand. I am now a proud member of the Article Rescue Squadron. I will get to restoring those SpongeBob and Fairly OddParents character pages when I have some more spare time. I am a very busy young man, but thank you. Marcus2 (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Telepathy and war

Hi, thanks for visiting the article. Look forward to seeing your draft to extend it. I also replied back on my user page. Frei Hans (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

update

Thanks again for your recent comments in trying to prevent the well referenced and encylopedically written, and re-written, Telepathy and war article. The deletionists have deleted it anyway, in spite of supporters who felt the article was worthy of peer review if re-written after having been severely pruned by the deletionists. I am trying to find out how to get it un-deleted. Before the article was deleted, discussion at "articles for deletion" showed strong support in favour of keeping the article. Frei Hans (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. WP:DRV is over there. Verbal chat 11:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He isn't attacking other editors, just complaining about a social injustice. Most of the problems came from the name "telepathy" which could've easily been changed. Some of those against it, kept saying "conspiracy theory", thinking it nonsense, despite the declassified documents, patent records, and major newspapers and magazine confirming things. Anyway, just copy over the information seen as valid, to new articles. I've been distracted by visiting relatives and other things, so haven't done much work on my Remote mind control draft. Thinking all information can be sorted through, and then decide which would go where, and how to name it all, how its all connected. Just got to work on something as a draft, and make sure to have some references, to avoid problems. And name it properly. Not everything has to be in just one article, it able to just link to another for something people might see as different. Dream Focus 15:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

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

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

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

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

Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell

Hi I have nominated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Robert_Baden-Powell for deletion. The article is abusrd and offers no proof, please make me aware of your opinion thatnks. TotallyTempo (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It does give undue weight to the opinions of two idiotic authors. It should only list the accusations, and then counter them. Since some people believe this nonsense, for whatever reason, perhaps having read a book on it, it makes sense to have an article about it, but certainly not in the form it is now. Controversy accusations of Robert Baden-Powell might be a better name for the article. Dream Focus 03:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there dream focus, I nominated his page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Robert_Baden-Powell for deletion. My tag was removed, we are debating on the talk page. Please come and voice your opinion. TotallyTempo (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Taking the bait

This is only going to encourage vandals. They're looking to get a rise out of people: the best thing to do is to deny them recognition. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Others did that, didn't seem to work. This one isn't getting a rise from anyone, he is just being told what a pathetic moron he is. He'll stop. Just have to point out the obvious to him. Dream Focus 08:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't. Civility is expected from everyone here. I note that said vandal has already come back at you, which was entirely predictable. Please don't do it again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

He went after two others who did the civility thing. So the civility thing doesn't work. You keep reverting the same guy, and posting a polite generic meaningless message on his talk page, and he keeps on repeating his vandalizing a dozen or so times before someone finally bans him. For vandal only accounts, made for no other reason than vandalism, civility is NOT going to work. Dream Focus 13:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither is incivility, and it never makes it better. As soon as the account gives anyone abuse, take it to AIV (or ping a friendly admin) and it'll be permanently blocked. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I did. [7] And the account got banned. Dream Focus 15:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your user page

I'm concerned about a few of the sections on your user page. I'm fairly certain that describing other editors with a different philosophical outlook than your as snotty and elitist or as an unreasonable, vicious horde is in keeping with the spirit of collaborative editing. Would you consider renaming these sections please? AniMate^draw 00:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I've seen too many cases where these words match the deletionists perfectly. Elitists because they believe something isn't good enough for the Wikipedia, snotty because, well, some are rather snotty about that. And as for the most recent bit, they are being unreasonable, I allowed to say that, and I do find their methods to be quite vicious. And there is no spirit of collaborative editing. Its more of people gathering up their friends in Wikiprojects or the Wikireview forum, and then rushing over to gang up and change or delete something they don't like. Dream Focus 01:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There are more polite ways of saying how you feel without being insulting. If you don't feel there is a spirit of collaborative editing, the way to change that isn't to insult other groups of editors. In fact, that is the way to perpetuate the battlefield mentality that has caused so many problems. If someone thinks you consider them to be unreasonable, vicious, snotty, and elitist, there is little chance they're going to make an effort to see your point of view. It can be argued (and may even be likely) that they wouldn't even if they didn't know your position, but it substantially weakens your position to label other groups of editors in such a way. And while not aimed at a particular person, it is an attack on a group because of their beliefs. Also, you shouldn't be using your user page as a soapbox to denigrate the personalities of others who disagree with you. I feel your user page, as it stands right now, is in violation of some of our policies and guidelines. I really would appreciate you toning it down. AniMate^draw 01:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

To put it more simply why I believe this is an attack, substitute for "delitionist" any ethnicity or religious group. That wouldn't be acceptable, so I'm fairly certain this isn't either. AniMate^draw 01:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

They are unreasonable people who refuse to listen to my point of view anyway. Time and again I say, hey, it sold hundreds of thousands of copies or was on the bestsellers list, and you can confirm this, but then have certain editors always insist that sales figures don't mean its notable, and try to delete things anyway. You can not reason with people like that, it simply not possible. And insulting someone's ethnicity or whatnot is totally different than insulting their belief in rampaging around destroying articles on the Wikipedia, simply because they don't like it. Do you care about the feelings of those who worked so hard on these articles they are constantly destroying, as much as you do the feelings of those I criticize for their vicious acts? I am not violating any policies at all. An administrator already came and talked to me about that before. One deletionist even mentioned my page on the proper Wikipedia page for reporting or discussing inappropriate user pages, everyone agreeing I did not violate any rules. Dream Focus 01:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in ending the battleground culture, and I get the feeling that you've decided the only way to express you're point is to dig yourself into the trenches. Reading over some of what you've written, I'm reminded of some of the hosts and pundits on MSNBC and FOXNews. "Party X is evil and nothing will change my mind." You don't accomplish anything by vilifying the other side, you only create more hostilities. Can I ask if you're interested in ending the battleground mentality that seems hardwired into some around here? AniMate^draw 03:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a user should have some license to state their opinions on their talk/user pages without having to completely sanitize them. Calling a deletionist "snotty and elitist" in an actual AfD is unlikely to be persuasive (just like calling the Article Rescue Squadron a "canvassing squadron", which I've seen multiple times in AfDs), but chilling discussion on a user talk page could prevent ultimately useful discussions of these issues, as long as we assume good faith at the outset. Many hide behind a facade of civility on wikipedia, which drives others crazy and calls for a blowing off of steam from time to time.--Milowent (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• It isn't possible to end the "battleground mentality," as some call it. People aren't going to agree on everything, and will argue constantly. Accept reality, and stop trying to place the blame where it doesn't belong. Look up any of the words, snotty elitist deletionist, and tell me if another word would work better in describing people with the characteristics I mention. Snotty and Snobbery are synonyms. Dream Focus 07:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I find your user page inappropriate for Wikipedia as a whole, to be honest. You even admit yourself that basically this is not a user page but a Wikipedia-related blog of sorts:

I see others have a user page that shows information about them. I'm not into that sort of thing.

I recommend that you blank it out per WP:UP#NOT. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing that isn't Wikipedia related posted anywhere at all. And why quote something I put there when I first started? There is no personal information about me, nor quotes from any famous person or books, or personal pictures, as I see some others do have. I only list things related to Wikipedia. Do you have a specific complaint? And for curiosity sake, please tell me how you found your way here? Dream Focus 17:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

See point 10: You may not have Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason. Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc. on your userpage. The large majority of the page isn't about Wikipedia articles themselves or your contributions but rather "deletionists" and such. I don't even know how I got to your user page; I guess I was checking article histories and stumbled upon your... er, page. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

deletionist are Wikipedia editors who believe in deleting everything they can, while inclusionist are Wikipedia editors who prefer to preserve whenever possible. These are officially recognized terms for these types of people. Read the Wikipedia articles about them to learn more. Every single thing on my user page is related to Wikipedia. Dream Focus 17:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Simply because those terms are used does not mean you are allowed to spread, frankly, propaganda against a group of editors on your user page. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• In response to your new edit, I am not attacking anyone at all personally. I am complaining about the Wikipedia recognized philosophy of the deletionist, and what their actions are doing to the Wikipedia. Notice they even have tags you can put on your page to indicate if you are a deletionist or an inclusionist. Check the top right section for that. Dream Focus 18:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  To your comment made while I was posting the above, no, this does not quality as a soapbox problem. I'm not making speeches about political parties and whatnot. Dream Focus 18:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Your user page is akin to making speeches about political parties. Replace "inclusionists" with Democrats and "deletionists" with Republicans (as an example) and I think you'll get the point. Deletionism and inclusionism are starting to become more than simple virtual philosophies. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Starting too? Well, tell me when they are, and you then have something to complain about. I see them as part of Wikipedia for now. Dream Focus 18:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've opened an MfD on the subject. Let's just see what the community thinks. Personally I view your user page as little more than a blog. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

About reference you added to Na Na Na Na

The reference you added to Na Na Na Na (deleted by User:TheFarix) lead me to edit Template:Ann/sandbox. If my edit has not been undone you will see the result on the next line.

• Na Na Na Na (GN 1) (releases) at Anime News Network's encyclopedia

You may not have intended this but thank you anyway. -- allen四names 01:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

They decided that since anyone can edit the encyclopedia part, that meant it wasn't a good reference. Of course since the overwhelming majority of manga doesn't get reviewed anywhere, especially in English, that means members of the Wikiproject dedicated to manga, end up deleting most of the articles. Tragic really. Also very, very stupid. Remember, WP:IAR is a policy that says ignore all rules, while the notability thing is just a suggested guideline you can easily ignore. Don't ever let anyone else convince you differently. Dream Focus 01:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude...

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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted his disruptive edits, and disguised it on the talk page. You can not merge without putting a tag first on the affect articles, and discussing it. Dream Focus 17:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no guideline requiring a merge discussion Dream. It's a suggestion, and preferable to an edit war, but not a necessity as you seem to think. The better route would have been to discuss it. What I find puzzling though is why you're protesting it: it's now a case of overlap, and no information was lost in the merge. Is it because you genuinely feel it should stay or because of the whole "deletionist"/"inclusionist" hubbub you go on about?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It was split for a reason. It was fine in its own area. And not all information will be preserved. And I did discuss it on the proper talk page. Dream Focus 18:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What information wasn't? The only thing omitted was the indepth discussion of the game's graphics, but with re-releases of titles and changing standards that is the most moot point to argue something on for reception. If something was missed just point it out.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I was actually thinking most of the information in the main article would be deleted in time, it best to keep that in a proper side article. That what usually happens with these sorts of things. But this time it seems to be a different case, judging by the history. Only the Monster section has been mass destroyed by a merger [8], nothing to do with this article though. Alright. Read through the information, and its fine. No further arguments for now. If someone tries to "trim down" the main article though, then it'll need to be restored as a side article. Dream Focus 18:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So I take it you're okay with this particular merger and it can proceed then? (As it stands I strongly doubt we'll see any trimming, the prose might need tidying but the information is rounded and strongly sourced).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, go for it. No further objection from me. And they did change the WP:MERGE guideline, it originally requiring a tag before hand, months ago when last I read it. No guideline was violated, and no relevant content lost. No objections. I should've read through things better this time around. Dream Focus 18:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Rape in the United States of America

I have nominated Rape in the United States of America, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape in the United States of America. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding versus wikistalking

I'd appreciate it if you would look at [9] and suitably amend your edit(s) at [10]? I'm asking everyone acting in my ArbCom clerk role. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Stalking is the proper term. Hounding has a totally different meaning. Wiki-Stalking could be used if there was any real confusion between people being stalked on Wikipedia and in real life, which I sincerely doubt there is. Dream Focus 00:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Robert John Bardo is a stalker; he killed a girl, he's in jail. I am an editor of these projects and will not stand for your toxic shite. I would refactor your comments, but will leave it to you to have another thinksie on it; if you fail to see the light, I've no doubt that Doug will do it for you and admonish you more strongly. I'll arrange for you to get a comment from someone with a few words to add on the subject of the misuse of this word on Wikipedia. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC) (who is not a stalker, he's a fucking sockpuppet ;)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stalk#Verb To "(try to) follow or contact someone constantly, often resulting in harassment." Dream Focus 08:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Just do it please Dream, it is not worth the controversy. Jack Merridew is personally contacting the editor who made this an issue.[11] Regardless that the arbcom unanimously in two sections of an arbcom determined that Jack Merridew's sock puppet was this word in 2006,[12][13] the word is now seen as bad.

Change the word, delete this section, and put it behind you, please. Regardless of your personal feelings, if you don't someone will for you, and that will only make you look bad. Ikip (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the details, but it seems like Durova had some sort of issue with a stalker. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 09:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

fyi, to link to Wiktionary, you are better served using a proper intwiki-link: wikt:stalk#Verb To; you can pipe it, if you like. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 09:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• I do not believe Jack Merridew is sincerely bothered by the use of the word. I find it ridiculous anyone would be complaining about its use at all. If you don't like it, then write to the dictionary companies of the world, and ask them to change the definition. There is no official rule against using it. It appears to be just the opinion of one person. Hound can mean to pressure someone for sex. So I could say that Wiki-hound is offensive, it making someone sound like a rapist. Hound is a dog, which is an offensive comment in different languages, normally said as bitch in English. Calling someone a Wiki-bitch would be offensive. Wiki-stalker is far more desirable of a term. Dream Focus 17:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Just to throw my own $0.02 in here, I tend to use both terms these days. The older term is the one I learned originally and I tend to use it more when it is clearly obvious someone is "stalking" contribs for the sake of outright harassment and disruption. I've only more recently begun to use "hounding" to "tone down" reports made on AN/I, etc of such behaviour. Both of these terms are certainly offensive if used improperly. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The change to the harassment policy where "wikistalking" was changed to "wikihounding" [14] was made on October 27, 2008. The discussion was here and having read that, I'm actually not sure I really agree with the change from "wikistalk" to "wikihound" myself now. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think I'm sincerely bothered by the use of this term, think again. Note that those are ArbCom pages your edits are on, and that is an ArbCom clerk above; he asked nicely. Regards. Jack Merridew 02:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'm sure we're all bothered by you wikistalking A Nobdy all the time. And he asked you nicely to stop it, as did others. Regards. Dream Focus 08:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you that, from a strategic perspective, it's just great that you're persisting this way. Ikip sees this. Listen to your caporegime. Regards. Jack Merridew 09:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you comparing the Rescue Squadron to a criminal organization, with Ikip being the caporegime? Isn't that ironic. You Jack, are a stalker, by every definition of the word. Nothing you say is going to change that reality. You enjoy following around your chosen victim, to torment them, in every way possible, just to have that sense of power over someone. Dream Focus 09:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Dream Focus, are you aware of our policy (ok, not an official 'rule', we don't have many 'rules', but not just one person's opinion) at WP:HOUNDING? "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. To use the older term "Wikistalking" for this action is discouraged because it can confuse minor online annoyance with a real world crime." As I said, that's policy. It doesn't forbid the use which is why this was a polite request. You can of course ignore a polite request, but it's still policy and if your reason is just 'I don't like the word hounding' maybe you should be trying to change our policy. And hound is just a type of dog, in no way does it equate with bitch.

And adding this after my edict conflict, 'every definition of the word' appears to be calling Jack Merridew a criminal. Are you going to redact this or is that what you are asserting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

Stalking someone on Wikipedia is not a criminal offense, but that is clearly what he is doing. No rule is violated by me calling him what he is, by the dictionary's definition of the word. Dream Focus 09:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you are going against a clear policy. Please don't obfuscate this by calling it a 'rule'. You can of course choose to ignore the policy, and it does say 'discourage', but it's still policy and you have decided to ignore it. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that any small number of people can change a policy, without the other 99.9% of Wikipedia even noticing, is a great injustice. General voting should be done. And the policy says its discouraged, which means absolutely nothing, other than you don't like it so if anyone does it you'll go hounding them until they stop. I choose to ignore the "discouraged bit" of the policy. Dream Focus 10:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's clear enough. You don't like the policy nor the way we formulate policy. I would now appreciate it if you would make it clear whether or not you are accusing me of hounding you. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

By the Webster definition of the word, yes, you appear to be hounding me, defined as "to drive or affect by persistent harassing". That has nothing to do with Wikihounding, which is just a misnamed word for wiki-stalking(stalking on the Wikipedia). Dream Focus 10:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say I was trying to clarify things. I think I've done that now. Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice Dream, Jack Merridew contacted Dougweller, contacted Durova, and now your refusal is at the top of the page. Editors are getting as much mileage out of your refusal as they can... Editors wanted a circus to avert focus from the their own disruptive behavior, and you gave them this, wrapped in gift paper and a big bow. Ikip (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt they are so easily distracted, and this has nothing to do with that case. While someone might try to change the subject and talk about as many different things as possible to confuse people, or for them to simply ignore the ever growing text entirely as its too much to sort through, and thus not get involved at all, I doubt a brief mention of this will affect anyone's opinion. If its at the top of a page somewhere, please link to it. All I see it commented at is [15] Dream Focus 16:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Google Hits in AfD's

Ive seen alot of times in the past that people complain google hits are no good, this is because google takes the word you enter in and matches it to tgext to ANY page out on the internet. Say for example the most recent claim reguarding Super Dimension Fortress, google will take the words and try matching them up, if there is a fan site called Super Dimension Fortress Fansite it will display thatr in your google search, the same goes for figurines, screen savers, ect... what you can look for in google however are websites about Super Dimension Fortress that talk about it from a professional and 3rd party point of view See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources, that gives a whole bunch of sites that may reference Super Dimension Fortress that you can use. Just trying to help ya out, its better than complaints from others. Happy editing! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't search for Super Dimension Fortress, obviously. I searched for freeshell.org since that's its proper name. I mention how many hits it gets, and ask if we can somehow determine how many people use it, and how long its been around. If it is the most popular free Unix server, and the oldest, then it is notable by those points. Dream Focus 02:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Advisory: libelous comment should be refactored at words 8-9. -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 19:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But I Digress

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG

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

User:Dream_Focus#Deletionist_mentality_forced_upon_the_rest

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

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

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

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

User page

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

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

Google searches for notability

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question regarding merging

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

You have to be more specific. Are you talking about the manga/anime merges or the Ultima merge perhaps? The discussion for the merge of Ultima was at [16] and the majority of people participating said they were against the merge. It never should've happened. Search the discussion for "7 against the mergers, 4 for the merges, and 1 guy for one but against the other two. I think consensus is to not merge anything." I'd also like to point out that there was canvassing at the Wikipedia video game board [17] by a deletionists flat out asking for people to support him in destroying all of the Ultima articles. Read his comments please. An edit and revert war happened, I finally just waiting at the administrator notice board for an administrator to get involved, but none of them responded. Dream Focus 04:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• You can find someone posting about an AFD that ended in merge,but the article was just replaced by a redirect instead. [18] Several editors protested this, saying some information should be merged over, as was consensus. If you look at the history of the article it was suppose to be merged to, you can see the first of many reverts by various editors was done at 07:41, 6 February 2009 by Kintetsubuffalo[19]. It went to RFC as I recall, and consensus was to merge information. After a few weeks, that information was deleted again by the same stubborn deletionist. The discussion was on the talk page [20]. It then went to Wikiquette board [21] but was closed after some arguing there, with the message to send it to another board, which I recall we did. Dream Focus 04:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Kharsag Epics

Much appreciation for your support on the deletion thread for this. Any advice on how to improve the article to ensure it meets criteria would be most welcome. I'm hoping my continued listing of sources, fringe or otherwise should establish notability and reliability. Please bear with me though because this is only the 3rd page I have created and filtering it from the fringe isn't easy on such a controversial topic. Paul Bedson (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice how in the AFD there is a search for Google news, Google books, and Google scholar. That'd always a good place to start. You can also search for the names of people involved in something. If too many results appear for people with the same name, you can filter out the results by adding in the job title of the person you are after, what company/organization/university they work for, or other information about them. Don't get discouraged. There is always some bored or misguided person roaming around everywhere just looking for articles to delete. Most of the ones I happen upon end up being kept though. Dream Focus 02:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Close

Am I the only one, or did you find the close here as peculiar, in that it was not closed as a keep?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That editor almost always tries to delete everything, regardless of consensus, and when he can't get away with that he says no consensus. Dream Focus 02:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So, perhaps its not a coincidence that I just participated in a DRV that overturned one of his closes. I guess this one is not worth the time?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I argued with him in the past. You can search for his name on my talk page, and see it appearing in places, or search for his name at deletion review to see just how many times his closures end up there. Dream Focus 03:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There should be a record as to what percentage of closers' closes get overturned. And the poorest performers de-sysoped.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I requested a bot to do something similar, listing every time someone nominated something for deletion, and how many times it ended in keep, delete, etc. [22] I'm not sure if the guy is still working on it, or not. Dream Focus 03:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow! ___ minds ... Pls let me know if one is created.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

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

On tagging but not posting

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

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

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

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

Iceland–Mexico relations

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

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

Citing Google hits

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

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

See how easy that was? [23] You could've easily just read through the summaries, looking at anything published after the year 2000 to see what was him. I can not link to the articles themselves, since all newspapers seem to require people to pay to read the full article these days, and what you end up with is less than what you can read in the Google search summary usually anyway. Dream Focus 03:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

caution

I see you've passed RfA at wikia:list and are working with an editor there, who is banned on this project. You should take care that you do not run afoul of:

• Wikipedia:Banning policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned users.

Happy editing, Jack Merridew 20:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh get a life. You bullied and stalked the guy, and someone before him, and ran him off. Let it go already, you won. And I've been working with saving list articles for quite sometime now. Someone put the Rescue tag on a list article, I then got administrative rights over there so I can import the things in the future myself. And why are you even over there seeing what other people are doing? Leave the guy alone already. Dream Focus 22:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You're free to ignore the caution. I felt the concern should be pointed out to you, but I'm ok with you proceeding on such a path if that is your intent. Jack Merridew 00:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

And what path might that be? Helping to preserve list articles over on a side Wiki? Yes, seems like a most dangerous life to lead. Dream Focus 01:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The path I was referring to is the one with the "no edits by and on behalf of banned users" sign. Choose your own path, as we all do. Jack Merridew 01:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing was done on behalf of anyone. I decided to move the article over after seeing it in the AFD, and then asked for administrative rights to be able to import things to that wiki directly myself. Dream Focus 05:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Merridew, you sound like a prophet--"Choose your own path, as we all do." haha. Dream, I also caution you to obey speed limits in school zones.--Milowent (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Featherlite Trailers

Despite having never edited this article, you somehow found your way to its AfD. I assume this was due to its having been flagged for "rescue". It shouldn't need to be pointed out that rescue is supposed to be about adding references and cleaning articles up, rather than simply showing up at the AfD. I have now carried out some of the basic copyediting which ARS allegedly helps out with; if you're genuinely interested in rescuing this article then it would be a good idea to have a look over its tone and add additional references before the end of the AfD (which is in just over a day's time). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I found references by checking Google news, and others did as well. Its notability has been established. And yes, every single article tagged for Rescue I do try to visit, and search for references and comment on. Dream Focus 13:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of search for references is to add them to the article, not to "win" AfDs. If you think there are references which establish notability then they should be added to the article rather than alluded to. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

We're there to save articles which are notable. References were found, reasons were given, and it will be saved from mindless destruction. If you think something belongs in an article, then add it yourself. 99% of the time, if the person nominating something for deletion spent just a few seconds searching for references themselves, they wouldn't be wasting all of our time. It usually just takes using Google news archive search and book search to find something. Dream Focus 23:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't consider that it's a 'save' not to actually improve the article. Pointing at the Google without actually reading the references it chucks out and selecting relevant and useful ones is easy, but benefits nobody, and certainly doesn't benefit the encyclopedia.   pablo_hablo. 23:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Out of context. Read the previous comments by others in the AFD. Also, read the article. I would hope whoever closes it looks over it briefly. To clarify my position, I quoted what part of the article should convince everyone, [24]. Honestly now. It should be common sense. A trailer company is notable if the most notable racing organization in the world uses it! Dream Focus 23:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant it in more general terms, and in the context of many, many AfD comments which just go "Google it". Googling may find some relevant hits, or not, but Google's AfD advocates seldom bother to use their highly-advanced internet skillz to improve the article in question.   pablo_hablo. 23:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Because most major newspapers require you to pay to read the article. But if the summaries themselves are convincing, then that's all that is necessary. Dream Focus 23:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Image

Hi, File:Doing battle with the Deletionists.jpg is nominated for deletion for missing evidence of permission. Regards Hekerui (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Added in plenty of evidence. Wait for staff member to read both emails the guy sent, to confirm his identity, and permission. Dream Focus 17:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:Incivility

Seeing as you've removed my comments without reply, I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding your behaviour. Thanks. Claritas § 19:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I replied in the summary. I don't like wasting time having the same arguments with people like you, who always say the same thing. Don't bother me on my talk page. I have the right, under the Wikipedia rules, to remove your post here and ask you not to post again. Dream Focus 19:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Dream_Focus#Another_typical_day_for_the_Rescue_Squadron

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

Freedom of speech

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

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

Wilson

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

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

Merry Christmas!

Click this gift to see what your Christmas gift is. − Santa^Claus 00:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Kinetic Architecture

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

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

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

The Rescue Barnstar

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

I absolutely endorse Heroic inclusionist against the evil deletionist hordes

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

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Members

Hello fellow rescuer! Keep up the good work.

I am reluctant to mention this, but having your paragraph in bold on Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Members seems to me to be a bit self-promotional and unfair to the other members. Is there any chance that I might be able to persuade you to voluntarily unbold it? Guy Macon (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Its been like that for over two years and no one else has ever complained about it. I don't see how its unfair to others. And it doesn't promote my self at all, only champions the cause of the Article Rescue Squadron. Dream Focus 22:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD stats

FYI - I posted an analysis of your AfD votes at User:Dream Focus/AfD stats. The stats are yours, so feel free to delete the page if you'd rather not have them around. —SW— ^gab 18:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That is rather useful. When I say keep, it ends in keep twice as often as not. I notice the first two items listed as being deleted after I said keep, were later recreated. Its also good to be able to read all the crazy arguments by people who disagreed with me such as in the Temple Mathews AFD. Writing for various notable films, one of which made $74,904,590, doesn't make someone notable apparently, that article ending in delete. The insanity of some deletionist. Dream Focus 23:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Click here

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

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

How do you do it?

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

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

Defining rape in the lead of the Rape article

You have been actively involved in editing the Rape article. I am stopping by to alert you that opinions are needed on the following discussion: Rewrite of the lead making the term difficult to define. Flyer22 (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not misreading

If you read the history from that thread, you would see that, from his own statements, he is frustrated. It is starting to show a bit more in how he is phrasing things, and I was giving him a light reminder. Him and I are also not in disagreement at all.

Your response to me, I was referencing, "As for your edit summary, 'Not about winning', that's not what this is about. Lets stay on topic though." As I indicated, that was not directed at you, and it seemed to upset you that you had read it. Besides, there is no harm in a gentle reminder now and then, to relax.

May I ask why you are so concerned with how I have been editing?

Homo Logica (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Some people go out of their way to pretend they are acting nice, while at the same time trying to paint their opponent in a negative light. Doesn't seem to be what's going on here though. I checked your recent contributions to make certain. Didn't see any real problems, just checking. Different ways to read things. Dream Focus 06:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Haha, yeah. It happens. I use the smiley to take the sting out of words that could be construed as criticism. However they are meant, and no matter what you put around something, that smiley face always seems to lighten the mood. If only so people are like, "wtf? A smiley? On Wiki? That's absurd!"

Homo Logica (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Homo Logica has conducted himself finely in the first AfD he has ever jumped in.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 11:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply at my Talk

I left you a reply at my talk. -- Avanu (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletionists

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

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

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

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Dream Focus,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 17:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

Report thrown out. A lame immature stunt by someone not getting their way. They know the rules, since you see them there before filing a report, and they were also told when Avanu was warned on their talk page, before deciding to go off and file a report themselves against the person warning them and a few others at the same time. [25] Dream Focus 20:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It was neither immature nor lame. It was being filed before Sarek (another involved editor) decided to 'warn' me. I reported myself as well, and it was 'thrown out' as you put it, becuase Off2Riorob felt that discussion was a better thing than raising it to the level of a report. My sincere hope with you is that you will tone down your rhetoric a bit and realize that not everyone is here to attack or defeat you or whatever you might be thinking. Regardless of your opinion on this, we were all editing warring. This has been borne out by another admin's protection of the page. It only takes 1 edit to edit-war. It is more about the nature of consensus and collaborative editing than how many times you have reverted. I've looked at your contribution history, Dream, and its clear you have a lot of great contributions here, would it just be possible for you to find an approach where your comments are less hyperbolic and more thoughful? -- Avanu (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you not to waste everyone's time with a discussion stretching for months now, which is so long it fills several archive pages on the Rescue talk page? You seem to have a win-at-all-cost mentality. You never participate in articles tagged for Rescue, nor have any intention of ever doing so, but you seem obsessed with wasting the time of those who do. You even state time and again that I, among the others who disagree with you, are unreasonable, etc. [26] I feel the same way about you. Why not spend some time actually working on some articles, instead of dragging this out even longer. Dream Focus 18:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I would like to win is a tiny acknowledgement from the ARS regulars that adding a rescue rationale is a good and decent thing to do. For some unknown reason, you guys seem especially intent on that.

• "waste everyone's time" everyone?
• "never participate" never? (by the way, not true, its one of the things that led me to the Template)

You use terms like these a lot. Its very stident and overstates reality. And although you might really feel this way, I think it makes you miss what people are really saying to you.

I've tried to be reasonable. I've proposed changes, you dismissed them without providing alternate ideas. If I have called you unreasonable, then that is why. (Looking at the link, I said you are beyond reasoning with, and gave a reason why I felt that way)

My impression is that you will only accept what you want. I've asked other old-time ARS editors to come and review things because of that. I've very willing to compromise here, but when people have been telling you they have concerns and you dismiss them without even a token effort, that's where things go. My latest section is a proposal to help turn this clearly into a suggestion, and rather than supporting even that, you outright dismiss it. What else am I supposed to conclude about your actions than you are unwilling to be a community partner in this effort? -- Avanu (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of the people with "concerns" are those that have attacked the Rescue squadron in the past, and only show up to argue with us, seldom if ever participating in any articles tagged for Rescue. Your only participation in an article tagged for Rescue was to first try to replace that article with a REDIRECT twice during the deletion discussion, and then remove the Rescue tag four times! And by "compromise" do you mean you'll stop this nonsense, if someone lets you have something, so your ego doesn't get wounded? Go to save face? Dream Focus 18:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any concerns about saving face, my ego, or anything of that sort. My motivation was to correct a problem. The problem being, that there is a dispute. The ARS regulars (most notably you) feel it is more important to be dismissive. That's just not right. Each person in there, you included, deserves to be respected for their contributions and input. If you insist on seeing this as a contest of egos, I'm not sure what to do. -- Avanu (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You have no contributions! You don't do anything for the project, you just waste everyone's time and irritate people. And there is no problem other than what you have created. I don't recall anyone else removing Rescue tags as you did, four times from the same article, then arguing nonstop about your right to do so. You tried to change the wording of the guidelines so you could do this, and got reverted by a lot of different people. You then argued nonstop all over the place about what the existing guideline meant. We shouldn't all have to waste this much time because one person is determined to get their way. Dream Focus 19:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Looks like we're not solving anything. Best of luck. Take care. -- Avanu (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. Keep all future discussion on the Rescue talk page please. Best to keep everything in one place. Dream Focus 20:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of relationships

I've replied to your post there.

By the way, are you familiar with the outlines project?

• Portal:Contents/Outlines - lists all 500+ of them. Arranged to cover knowledge as a whole. We could sure use your help to identify gaps.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines - dedicated to developing outlines to comprehensive topic coverage.
• Wikipedia:Outlines - tips and suggestions for making useful outlines.

My favorite outlines are Outline of Japan, Outline of ancient Greece, Outline of chess and Outline of Buddhism (even though I'm not a Buddhist).

Enjoy, Sincerely, The Transhumanist 10:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

List articles that are called Outlines instead of List. Same thing, so it doesn't matter what you call them. Dream Focus 10:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware

Mr. Focus;
In circa two minutes when I finish closing this debate I'm mildy critical of you. I thought better you hear it from me first. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You ignored consensus of those there, and cast a super vote. Bad administrator. [27] CyberShack is a reliable source. It is a broadcast television show.[28] They do not let just anyone post on their website, but decide what is worth putting there themselves. If they thought software was notable enough to put an article, then so be it. And there is no minimum word requirement. That seems like a long enough article to me. How much more could anyone write about something like this? [29] And Linux Magazine is a reliable source.[30] They are a print magazine with editorial oversight. Did you see http://lwn.net/op/FAQ.lwn ? They review anything submitted to them, so editorial oversight is there as well. Those saying to Keep the article are Qrsdogg, Widefox, Dcxf, and Dream Focus. Those wanting to delete it are Hrafn. Consensus was clearly to keep it. I've seen articles in major newspapers that are similar, since they all get their basic information from the same sources. But they don't cover everything. They decide what they consider notable to their readers. Administrators are suppose to judge the consensus of those participating in the AFD, not ignore them entirely and go with their own opinion. Consensus was clearly that the sources were enough. Please reconsider your actions. If not, I'll take this to deletion review. Dream Focus 05:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the note on my talk, but I generally like to keep discussions together so I'll respond here.

You'll see if you look at the logs that I took quite a long time to come to the decision, and that I was very careful to explain why I parsed the comments the way that I did. I'd also note that, due to a technical difficulty, at least one other admin has reviewed the decision and confident enough in it to perform the actual deletion for me. (Please for the love of dog don't take that as a reason to aggi' DMacks, as he explicitly said "neither endorse/dispute.")

You may see in my most recent close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phrozen Crew that I explicitly point to deletion review. As one of the major framers of the venue as it exists now, I'd activly encourage you to take the close there. In the event that I'm wrong in how I've read consensus, the material will be restored. If, conversly, you've misread the way that policies and guidelines are put into practice, then you'll get a wider plurality of views on the matter.

I am, however, going to stop watching this page now. If you do choose to take this to deletion review, I don't need notifying as I put everything I could possibly say into to actual close.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

I replied to your message on my talkpage; if you could please get around to archiving yours so it's actually navigatable? Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. And yep, it was getting rather long, so I took the time to archive a large chunk of it. Dream Focus 20:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Dude, it's still one hundred and eighty kilobytes long. When an article gets to half that length we stick a notice up to warn that it might bork browsers. Ironholds (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Notice

This is regarding you, so I wanted to notify you about it. WP:Wikiquette alerts#Civility Issues with Editor -- Avanu (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

An all American apple pie for you!

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

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

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

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

Re: Your bot made a mistake

Look at my user page please. :) Not a bot. And indigenous peoples of the Americas is not incorrect. The United States one is more specific but either work OK. US one is just a bit better. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 09:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Again. My mistake. Not a bot. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 09:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Notable Software

It seems to me that the deletionists are being unduly harsh on ImDisk sources, but I am not sure what to do about it. As a former professional computer programmer (mainframe and then PC), this is eminently useful software and there is no reason not to include it, except deletionist philosophy. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Certain editors are often rude and hostile, thus preventing others from bothering to comment in AFDs. They have software.wikia.com for listing all free software. I guess when people Google search for this software, they'll hopefully find their way there. Dream Focus 16:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not gone yet, and maybe I can find a way to keep it. If nothing else, I can certainly put it on my user talk page. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Navy-Vieques protest article

Would you mind commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Navy–Vieques protesters and supporters about the issues I raised regarding that article? My concern is that, even sourced, this is not the sort of article Wikipedia should have. I'm not certain on this, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea of us creating articles that collect people by an opinion they happen to share. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I just ignore list haters, since I've wasted too much time bothering with arguments in the past. Wikipedia has always had these sorts of articles, and there is no reason not to have them. Nothing gained by deleting them. And people who are curious about an issue, might want to see which elected officials and others have supported it. Those who aren't interested in this, aren't likely to find their way to it anyway, so won't even notice that it is there. No shortage of server space. Dream Focus 01:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If you had read my objection, you'll see that, as far as I can tell, Wikipedia has never and does not currently have these sorts of articles. Now, maybe I just didn't look hard enough, but I don't see any other lists (other than the ones I mentioned) of the form "List of people who believe X." But, of course, you're not obligated to respond to my comments...but please know that my concern here is very specifically with the idea of grouping people by personal opinions about individual subjects. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

answer

I found an explanation of the Jessie Richardson awards. I am no expert on this, but I suspect it is not considered that noteworthy.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It has ample news coverage so that makes it notable. Dream Focus 15:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• On an unrelated note, happy birthday DreamFocus!! :D I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Happy WikiBithday!!

Hey, Dream Focus. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy WikiBirthday! Have a great day! Suraj T

Grant Morrison photo

Hi. Your opinion on what would be the best photo for the Infobox in the Grant Morrison article is requested here. If you could take the time to participate, it would be greatly appreciated, but if you cannot, then disregard; you don't have to leave a note on my talk page either way. Nightscream (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ellen Kennedy

Just wanted to let you know that if the DRV ends with Endorse Deletion, you should go ahead and get the article userfied and add in all the sources discussed in the DRV and any others you can find and then recreate the article, as you'll be creating a version that fixes the reasons for the opposes in the AfD proper. Silverseren^C 23:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If they decide that meeting secondary guidelines is now meaningless, massive numbers of articles will be destroyed. Dream Focus 00:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You'd probably struggle to get the article userfied under these circumstances. Userfication following deletion is for re-writes where additional sources have been found, if deletion is endorsed that will be de facto rejection of those sources. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that deletion of an article necessarily means that the sources are unusable, but I'm not sure why the editors in the debate didn't just ask Ellen Kennedy *directly* for sources that establish her notability. Surely she (or her agent) has kept various noteworthy bits of information on her life and activities, so rather than trying to find a news clipping from the 1993 Vancouver Sun, she probably just has it. -- Avanu (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Since she had news quotes (no links though) on her website for her various things, I would assume that she does have copies. Silverseren^C 01:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted because there weren't sources for the article at all. Sources found afterward does not mean they are irrelevant. The DRV is supposed to be considering the close, not the sources. If endorsed, it would be endorsing a version without sources, not one with them. Silverseren^C 01:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's incorrect not only in practice, but in black-letter as well. The principal purpose of deletion review includes considering "new information [that] has come to light since a deletion." The current debate at the Ellen Kennedy review is almost entirely about sourcing, and the current rough conseses to endorse deletion is based upon the lack of reliable sources. Additional sources being provided to attempt to refute that position clearly fall under the auspice of new information. If the review is endorsed, that will be a demonstration of rough consensus of an explicit rejection of said sources. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So that means that the closer should be ignoring any votes to delete that just say the close of the AfD was done properly for the information presented in it, correct? Maybe we should leave a comment over there to that effect. If people aren't considering the sources in their vote, then it shouldn't apply. Silverseren^C 01:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly correct. It's no different from AfD: Five people (or fifty) say "delete, no sources" one person then comes up with good (!) sources, and the article is probably kept. If you want to look, there are almost certainly cases exactly like than in recent AfDs/DRVs. If you mean to alert adminstrators who do closes there, the probably don't need that note, it's somewhere in the admin handbook as something to look out for, opinions that are overcome by events. If you believe that some of the earlier opinions would change based upon the sources now provided, I'd think a neutrally worded ("new sources are under discussion.") note on their talk pages to that affect would be acceptable?
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• It was deleted because the closing administrator believed that secondary guidelines were meaningless, and that it had to meet the GNG. I didn't bother contacting the person this time, because I assumed with credits like that, she clearly met WP:ACTOR. Other voice actor articles have been kept, based on WP:ACTOR alone. Dream Focus 02:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Risk of canvassing?

Just FYI (because someone recently accused me of something similar) your recent comments on the talk pages of Lambian, Ffbond and Kuyabribri might seem like canvassing. Word to the wise. Cheers. andy (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as everyone who participated is contacted, its not canvassing. And having a new AFD a month after the old one, instead of just reopening the old one, is rather lame. Dream Focus 18:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• The old one was speedy closed as bad faith and the nominator indef blocked. This one is genuine. Anyway, I thought it worth mentioning. No problems. andy (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

File:Infobox takes up half of article width.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Infobox takes up half of article width.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. damiens.rf 14:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of Rescue Tag At Origin of death stories

This matter has been referred to the Dispute resolution noticeboard at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Origin of death stories, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of death stories -- Avanu (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ellen Kennedy Deus

So, you gonna go get it userfied so we can get to work on it? We might want to go and invite the other people that were interested in doing that as well. Silverseren^C 04:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You can do it if you want. I'm done with it for now. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_July_19#Ellen_Kennedy had a ridiculous outcome. They are now going to be ignoring all the secondary guidelines, and mass deleting things all over the place. Dream Focus 10:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Cat request

Hey Dream, just asking you as you're the only editor I know who knows how to create cats. (seem to remember you made one for CEOs or something like that. ) Lots of authors with several articles on their books have their own cat, so could you possibly please make one called Works by Simone Weil which could be added to The Iliad or the Poem of Force , Letter to a Priest and The Need for Roots ? FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You just add it to the articles you want, and it gets created. Click the red link, and write the information. Category:Works by Simone Weil Dream Focus 12:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much Dream, will try that next time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Voice actors

We seem to end up at a lot of the same sorts of AfDs with different results, and I have a suggestion for you which you are welcome to consider or not, but please understand I mean it in good faith.

Essentially every AfD I've created has been as a result of a project that I've been involved with for well over a year trying to add sources to unreferenced biographies of living people. The project was created in part because of a threat of automated deletion of (at the time) around sixty thousand such articles. I believed that that would be pretty much a disaster, but I also believe that it is critically important for Wikipedia to insist on reliable sources for BLPs. So I got in and started doing the work of trying to add sources to thousands of articles. I've added sources to thousands of articles, a lot of them voice actors. Only a few percent of the articles I look at in the process end up at deletion.

There's nothing magic about what we do, you can too, and given your knowledge of the field, you might be able to do a better job with respect to voice actors. You can look at the list of remaining unreferenced voice actor articles using Toolserver. As I write this now, there are 46, be patient, this takes a few seconds to run, It's likely in the next month or two, each of those 46 will be looked at by WP:URBLPR unless sources are added to them. Your assistance trying to save these articles by the addition of reliable sources would be gratefully appreciated. In particular, I could really use another set of eyes on the first one, Shigeru Chiba, whose resume just screams that there must exist more in the way of reliable sources. Any assistance on Shigeru or any of the other 45 would be appreciated. No worries if you're not interested. Best regards, --joe decker^{talk to me} 18:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(Actually, I got Shigeru, yay.) Best, --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You are successfully destroying articles for people you have no doubt are notable in their field, simply because that field isn't something covered in the mainstream media. Dream Focus 01:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Joe, I'm glad you managed to handle Shigeru. I mean, it's not as if sources are scarce. --Gwern (contribs) 16:25 16 August 2011 (GMT)

Well deserved

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

Deletionism and Inclusionism

As a relative newcomer, I'm trying to sort out this topic of Deletionism and Inclusionism. So far I have not seen much in either philosophy to recommend it, because both appear to me as biases in advance of evidence. When in doubt, I would vote for inclusion, because ignoring available information is easier than discovering unavailable information. However, discarding all filters would be tantamount to trying to live without an immune system, on the argument that all life is equally deserving. As I try to discover what best to think about this topic, I notice that you are an extreme champion inclusionist. You voted to include a page that even Carrite voted against! My question is: could you indicate some pages (if any) for which at least some case was made, but that you nevertheless voted to delete? My goal would be to study them and try to generalize where the boundary might fall (if anywhere) in the case of a particularly dedicated inclusionist such as yourself. If that would be impractical, I would be interested to know in a more general way what types of pages (if any) you would vote to delete even though someone somewhere could make a case for them. Ornithikos (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are referring to the Cult Brands article, I did not say keep, since in its current state there isn't anything to keep. The topic does get ample news coverage, so someone could write an article with that name and make it valid. Anyway, someone did create a bot to track how many times someone has said keep or delete in AFDs and how that discussion ended. See: [31] It hasn't been updated since March though, and isn't 100% accurate. It does show I have in fact said delete dozens of times. If it is a hoax, mindless spam, or a personal vanity page for someone who hasn't accomplished anything notable in one field or another, I vote delete. I do support specific guidelines for including things in Wikipedia, provided the Wikipedia Foundation itself determined this, or allowed a general vote where the millions of Wikipedia users would be aware of the discussion, and have time to vote. What we have now though, is a small number of people camping out at the guideline pages arguing nonstop to get their way, changing it to be able to keep what they like and eliminate what they don't like. Dream Focus 12:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for this clarification and information. Your input on the Cult Brands article changed my thinking about it, and I changed my input accordingly, modulo that I don't personally think that any commercial frenzy deserves much notice. That table you pointed me to is remarkable, and I will study it as I described, to try to improve my thinking about inclusion and exclusion. The problem that you mention of an unrepresentative sample getting control of something has bothered me repeatedly. I have also seen personal preferences rationalized both as inclusionism and deletionism, which is part of why I am trying to learn what can underlie them. I have one question. You wrote of the Cult Brands page: "If it is deleted, please don't salt it or anything to keep it from being recreated..." But how could anyone actually do that, given that all versions of everything remain forever available? Ornithikos (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

They can salt an article's name so no other article can ever be created there. And once deleted, only administrators can see the history. Dream Focus 18:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I would assume that "they" refers more specifically to an administrator who deletes a page, and that such an administrator has that power to enable doing away with nefarious names, like some of the vandals that I've seen would create. Is that a correct interpretation? If not, this salting option seems like a disastrous loophole. Surely anything done in software can be undone! Ornithikos (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Many times some rampant deletionists will be calling for an administrator to delete and salt the name to prevent anyone from ever recreating the article again. I'd be curious to find a list of just how many article names have been salted. I guess the software needs to be able to do that for people who register one account after another to just keep recreating the same page again. I don't know. Seems like an odd thing to have. As for as nefarious names, every single swear word has its own article. Dream Focus 19:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand now, having also found Wikipedia:Protection policy. By "nefarious" I meant things like what Europeans call "inciting racial or religious hatred". The only pages I wish could be systematically deleted are advertisements that have smuggled themselves aboard by masquerading as descriptions. However, I can already see that no consensus exists about which pages those are, so I probably will never accomplish much in that direction. Thanks for your help in understanding Wikipedia. Ornithikos (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I need your opinion

Hi. I have a question for which I need objective opinions. Can you offer your viewpoint here? I really need it in order to proceed. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for participating. To clarify, do you believe the name of the writer of the recap should be mentioned? Nightscream (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read it so I wouldn't know. Are these notable people? Did they add anything to it? Or just write a summary of what happened and copy and paste images from the comic to toss around? These aren't famed film credits or whatnot after all. Dream Focus 21:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The writer in question is not notable (certainly not at this time--who knows what the future holds), and merely wrote an all-text recap of the first 19 issues. He also provided a one-page sequence of one of the characters in issue #23, though it was unpaid fan art. Someone (not I, I assure you), created a page for him at the CBDB, though that doesn't really mean anything in itself, since that site is user-generated, and he only has those two credits at this time. Thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Note

Comment here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

ScrewAttack

Hi! I'd like to let you know that ScrewAttack is now being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Screwattack_again. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

External Links

Dream_Focus - you need to read the Wiki policy on External Links - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links I followed the requirements exactly as written. The link I added to Earthwave Society is far from being promotional, or commercial, unless you consider INFORMATION AND EDUCATION to be promotional, and if that's the case, you need more training as an editor. For you to say Earthwave Society is not a viable resource deserving of a link on the Crayfish page is absolutely ludicrous. You must have limited knowledge about the core of non-profit organizations such as the Nature Conservancy, Earthwave Society, Green Peace, PETA, etc., and how they operate. If you need something to compare in order to better understand PROMOTIONAL, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Monsters. That page is self-serving, and extremely commercial considering the programs are for profit and not for educational purposes. They've included their entire broadcast schedule on their Wiki site, and the programming can only be seen on a PAID SUBSCRIPTION CHANNEL. Earthwave Society doesn't charge a dime for broadcasting its educational material to an audience. We are a legitimate, federally registered non-profit organization. We distribute EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL AND VIDEO DOCUMENTATION ON DVD FOR THE PURPOSE OF TEACHING PEOPLE ABOUT CONSERVATION, AND GOOD STEWARDSHIP OF OUR RIVERS & OCEANS. Wikipedia even has a donation page - there isn't an organization in existence that can operate on air alone. Do you consider Wiki's donation page "promotional" or "commercial". Of course not, so you can't consider Earthwave Society's site promotional or commercial either. I don't know what else I can do to make you understand. I feel I have reached a dead end, so I've turned this issue over to the Admin group for resolution. Atsme (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme aka Betty Wills, Executive Director, Earthwave Society