|text = On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#29 March 2020|29 March 2020]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes]]''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that after 50 years in business, '''[[S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes]]''' is both a landmark and a stop on "Haunted Pittsburgh" tours?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template:Did you know nominations/S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes]]. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2020-03-19&end=2020-04-08&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=S.W._Randall_Toyes_and_Giftes S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes])</small>, and it may be added to [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics|the statistics page]] if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know talk page]].
|text = On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#29 March 2020|29 March 2020]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes]]''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that after 50 years in business, '''[[S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes]]''' is both a landmark and a stop on "Haunted Pittsburgh" tours?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template:Did you know nominations/S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes]]. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2020-03-19&end=2020-04-08&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=S.W._Randall_Toyes_and_Giftes S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes])</small>, and it may be added to [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics|the statistics page]] if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know talk page]].
As far as Wikipedia role models go, you are definitely mine. I aspire to be like you. I will strive to do my best to stop pages from getting deleted on Wikipeida. [[User:TwinTurbo|TwinTurbo]] ([[User talk:TwinTurbo|talk]]) 00:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
LOL! He joined wikipedia to delete stuff that most people like, and unfortunately he can't do that now, so he is quitting. Since we've faced problems with him before, closing AFD his way, ignoring consensus of all the keeps, I'm glad to see him go, and more so that I was one of the ones that caused him to give up(although he'll probably be back soon enough). The golden age may come again, and the many articles that thrived since the time when wikipedia was young, only to be destroyed by hordes of deletitionists later on who decided the encyclopedia shouldn't have such things in it, shall be restored. When notability guidelines are replaced entirely by common sense, or a large tag atop them saying "these are just suggestions people! Use the reasoning part of your brain for things!" I dream of a day this will come to pass, and wikipedia will be the interesting paradise it once was. DreamFocus00:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been in enough to know how things end. There is no vote of the general populace on any of those essay/guideline/policy pages, it all up to whatever small group camps out there the longest, adding what they want, reverting others, and arguing nonstop until the other side gives up in frustration. Therefor you can't expect any reasonable person to take any of it seriously. Wikipedia is not a set of rules. You ignore all rules, and use common sense. DreamFocus10:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, you've never had even 1% of Wikipedia users participate in any of those things. And what exists now, was not there in the early years of Wikipedia, back in the golden age, before the evil hoards of deletionists forced their will upon the silent masses, changing policies, and mass deleting things calling it cruft, hacking large chunks of articles away because they didn't like it, and nominating many others for deletion. DreamFocus10:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I Digress
Dreamfocus: I suggest you pick up the March 2010 issue of Comic Buyer's Guide and read the column "But I Digress." I think you will appreciate it.Padguy (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of ironic that during the AFD, they didn't consider you a credible reference despite your experience in the industry, but as soon as you publish something, it does become a credible reference used to establish notability. Same guy, saying the same thing, but only when its in print, do they take it seriously. And there are articles for a lot of things the actor has had a significant role in, as the blue links in his filmography section of his article now indicate. You mention the deletionist nominator didn't consider Space Cases to be a notable work, and yet is long had an article on the Wikipedia. DreamFocus14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are quite correct in your analysis. The ignorance I keep seeing displayed in Afds never fails to stun me. See this example. "Minor"? He is considered the founder of the many decades old and international scounting movement that has affected millions of people. Moreover, he was one of the commanders in the siege of Mafeking, one of the two most important in the Boer War. Winning one of history's decisive victories in a significant colonial conflict (one of Britain's costliest and most well known from that era and one with long-term ramifications) and founding one of the most well-known international movements is hardly "minor". As far as his alleged homosexuality not being a "vast topic" is just ludicrously false. Do a Google Books search of Baden-Powell and sexuality or homosexuality and you get hundreds of results with multi-paragraph anaylses in published books, such as in this paragraph or this entry. Declaring him "minor" reflects a lack of familiarity of his actually significant role in history, something any historian would know. Saying his sexuality has not received significant attention is either a false declaration or yet again reflects either not actually doing any even cursory research or having no real knowledge of the subject. And in a larger sense, humans as living creatures are driven in a significant part by their biology. The notion that our sexual desires does not influence us is ludicrous. In order to understand important historical figure's motivations, we need to consider even the controversial aspects of their lives. Now, from a purely academic standpoint, AfDs are frequently so out of touch with facts, honesty, etc. and are therefore so surreal as to defy just about any seriousness. Actual experts on any given subject do not frown upon Wikipedia because it covers some subjects that a vocal minority arbitrarily and usually ignorantly deem non-notable, but we frown upon Wikipedia on occasion rather because a vocal minority arbitrarily and usually ignorantly deems subjects for which they are not experts non-notable. And we keep seeing that every time someone bafflingly refers to someone with actual historical significance in at least two major instances as "minor." Just as we do with the example of the image you have recently edited, i.e. as the article cites an instance in which someone wanting to delete refers to a guy as a female amidst other factual errors that anyone familiar with the subject would not make. One other thing to keep in mind is that it is not as if "deletionists" outnumber the masses. One of the major failings of AfDs is that they do NOT reflect the actual will of the community. They are nothing more than a snapshot in time reflection of usually at best a dozen editor's who happen to be familiar with Afds. Most critically is that those with the mindset you describe are far more apt to hover around AfDs, whereas most others prefer article contributions (I like welcoming new editors myself...) or are sufficiently busy in their real lives so as to be unable to devote time to such discussions. Thus, we end up with scenarios in which thousands of people come here for an article that scores of editors contributed to being decided by a handful of accounts that in many instances have neither interest nor knowledge in the subject under discussion and because they personally are not interested in it and thus are unwilling to do any real research to see how it can be sourced/improved, they declare it is not worthy for anyone else either. We can generally agree that hoaxes, libel, and copyright violations have no place on Wikipedia and so I would never fault someone for wanting to protect Wikipedia from legally damaging or dishonest content. But once we start seeing calls to delete based on subjective bases, such as notability, then we start getting into deletion as a matter of personal preference indeed being forced upon others. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk05:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wherever I go on Wikipedia, your username seems to pop up (maybe I notice it because of the colors (or should I say colours) but I notice anyway). Although we obviously have different points of view I like the way that you battle for the freedom of speech and information on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! (Or is that to British?). But the real reason why I am here is that, maybe in future, I would like to quote some of your statements in my user section. Would you be comfortable with that? --JHvW(talk)15:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely endorse Heroic inclusionist against the evil deletionist hordes
At least I feel understood! I have changed the Title of my article as you suggested, thanks FC 18:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Note: Moved from userpage by me. Airplaneman ✈18:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Its amazing that 10,161 new users had their articles deleted, and only 64 remained to continue editing after that. Many just having their article nominated or prodded for deletion, or it turned into a redirect, might take off as well. DreamFocus02:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you do it?
Dream, you probably don't know me, but I wanted to ask you something. I first encountered your tag on AfDs, which is the only thing I occasionally peruse now. From there, I found your user page, and that is when I was convinced that you are definitely a kindred spirit in heart. I used to be quite active on Wikipedia, but after an incident involving a deletionist (nominating hundreds of articles a day after tagging them with every notability tag possible - including ones that made no sense), I lost heart. A lot of work is now gone, perhaps forever, over just not being able to keep up with what he was doing. I did save one! - (Bunnies & Burrows) - but others of equal references went bye-bye in ways you describe on your user page. So, now that I've given a little background, I have a question for you. How do you keep on going? In the past, I was passionate about trying to help Wikipedia. I took a break after the Gavin incident, and after two years, he has finally been banned. However, hundreds (maybe thousands) of articles are now gone - and each one could have been saved. I am just not sure I want to even try anymore. What would be the point? Wikipedia has changed - and I am not sure I want to be part of the environment it has become. Yet, you strive forward - and try to make a difference. Feel free to reply on my talk page if you like - or keep it here. I look forward to reading your response. (Interesting note, I had to comment on some AfDs really quick to get my recent posts high enough to post this here) Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think anyone but new users can post here, and you are only a new user until you have been around for four days and made at least 10 edits, or something minor like that. As long as you are logged in and not an IP address, it shouldn't be a problem. The relentless rampage of the hordes of evil deletionists does indeed cause many to loose hope at times. But I focus on the majority of AFDs I participate in that end in Keep, instead of dwelling on the unfortunate few that end up getting deleted. Its horrible when logic fails, and the bad guys get their way, however for the most part, as long as enough people show up to notice what's going on and comment, the articles are saved. If you see an article that you believe can be saved, tag it for the Rescue Squadron and help is on the way. Category:Articles_tagged_for_deletion_and_rescue. Be warned of course, some deletionists do sometimes go there just to find a reason to delete something and insult us. Must be careful to remain calm and not sink to their despicable level. DreamFocus01:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! I forgot to tell you. I was trying to think, who to tell, and who might not want to be bothered. It can be put on any page at all. DreamFocus13:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, FYI, it only works on each editor's own user and user talk page. I saw this posted on your user page and was surprised that any editor could apparently create an editnotice for any article; after looking into it, I was relieved to find that that's not the case. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dream. I got impressed for the polemic produced in that debate, and seemed very, very unlikely the deletion of the article. In cases like that is it not obvious that any article should be kept? How is possible one admin taking that final decision? It is clear that a neutral committee should decide that. It seems pretty much a contestable act over there, therefore a clear case to the Deletion review. My main problem is finding time to all this, however I will be there if you or some else do the request. By the way, thanks for all; you are a true knight. Excalibursword (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm busy with other things in life and don't have time for a long drawn out debate I don't think will go anywhere. The people that put that area on their watchlist and show up regularly usually side with the deletionist mentality. DreamFocus14:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes the fight is more important than the victory or defeat.Dream Focus, you did a lot and well. We fight every day of our lives, keep in mind fighting to right principles (as you done over there), then you and all will be always winning. Barnstars are interesting but here is a more useful tool to you. Excalibursword (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a battleground, just a place were opposing camps see who can argue the longest at the guideline pages to get things their way, and use the results to justify elimination types of articles they don't like. A place where people arguing nonstop at AFDs over whether articles should be kept or deleted, people seldom agreeing with one another or convince of someone else's viewpoint at all, locked into what they believe at first, and refusing to budge from it. DreamFocus19:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dream, I just saw that you took that to DRV, and also commend you for having the balls to do so. When that was on for speedy deletion I had removed the tag and suggested it needed to go to AFD, but it was deleted soon afterwards anyway. See User_talk:The_Devil's_Advocate#List_of_pedophiles. I am very uncomfortable about any actions we take that appear to provide comfort to pedophiles. How can pedophiles deserve a pass when a List of convicted war criminals does not? I don't understand how this was speedy material.--Milowent • hasspoken14:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Food for thought
When there are that many people piling up on the other side of an issue, it's useful to contemplate what that means, I have found. It might have been better to let this one go, I think. Herostratus (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It means many people will look at a title and not bother thinking things through before making a decision. Or will actually believe some nonsense about Google caching something and it on the internet forever, destroying people's lives? Ridiculous. DreamFocus20:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I gather you didn't learn anything from this. That's too bad. I make mistakes -- we all do, I guess, except maybe you -- and contemplating them helps me to learn and grow. Oh well. Herostratus (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made no mistake in this. I used logic to try to reason with people, while they simply refused to think things through, and thus one more perfectly valid article is lost to Wikipedia this day. DreamFocus00:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I kind of resent that comment. I'm logical. I'm intelligent. I think things through. I've thought about this kind of thing for a long time and have a fully formed and internally consistent view the matter. So just maybe there's something else in play here. Herostratus (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are in denial. Others have gone there and agreed with my reasoning. A simple name change would've solved all problems. If its fine as a category, no reason why it wouldn't be as a list. Only those convicted of the crime would be on the list. Google does not store a permanent copy of anything, the cache updated regularly, so that concern ridiculous. And if vandalism ever was an actual problem, semi-protection could be placed there to stop new users from editing it. Please go there to debate these issues on the proper page if you can come up with a logical reason why it'd be a problem. DreamFocus06:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no coordinated attacks. You don't see anyone joining in some AFDs tagged for rescue, and when someone does join its never that many people, and they don't always say to keep things either. DreamFocus15:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dream Focus. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Article Rescue Squadron and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.
Its so only the most determined will post here. No, seriously, I had no idea, since my internet is fast enough things load up instantly. I thought everyone had DSL or higher these days. I'm archiving some chunks of it now. DreamFocus20:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "unsourced fancruft" is everyone failing to grasp here? An article that long should not have only four sources. And where is the out of universe notability? I'm not seeing it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)19:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you see something that needs sources to prove the statement is true, you tag it. You do NOT just toss out dozens of citation needed tags all over the place, where they don't belong. If the paragraph mentions what episode or book the information is from, there is no need to repeat that in a reference. And calling something "fancruft" just shows your reason for trying to delete it was that you just don't like it. How many times have you had everyone else against you trying to delete something, and you still don't get it? DreamFocus19:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I used my Highbeam account but only found one article where they mention the band and quote the guitarist. I tossed a link to it into the article as a reference. DreamFocus01:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding comment on template:VAP when you said there was little there gender-specific, I would like to remove anything which is gender-specific and was wondering if you had suggestions for something there which should be removed? Ranze (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I realize I worded things wrong. I should've been more specific. I have now responded and hopefully cleared things up. Some issues affect both genders, so no need for those articles to have just a template for women. DreamFocus23:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dream Focus. Your edit comment here when you re-added a very surprising medical assertion needs to be backed up by the provision of the promised reliable sources. For such medical assertions, the standard to meet is wp:MEDREV. A television news spot doesn't come close to being good enough. LeadSongDogcome howl!04:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. This is a reliable source, and there is no possible reason to doubt the information. Check Google news results and you'll find ample coverage of this in many reliable sources. Please don't start an edit war trying to remove it again. DreamFocus09:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redflag links to a bit that says "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;". That's not valid here, since it is covered by multiple mainstream sources. DreamFocus09:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I think I've heard of that too (and as a molecular biologist, I have to say the use of viruses to target cancer therapies is not unheard of, albeit I'm unsure of its success), I'd like to see a WP:MEDRS-compliant source as well. A video by a mainstream news is not a RS for medical claims -unfortunately they get stuff wrong more often than right, when dealing with medicine/science. --Cyclopiatalk06:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it unlikely scientists at a major university would lie about achieving something like this. A private company you could doubt, but would a university lie? I added in an additional source statement before my addition to the article was removed again. [4]DreamFocus08:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, academic researchers lie. The point is however not about lying, but it is about how news reports science things, and how researchers themselves report their stuff (Hint: they both tend to hyper-inflate achievements). Just look for the academic paper about the claim. --Cyclopiatalk12:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Variations of the Mega Drive move to list
I don't think we were quite ready for that move yet - I had just proposed that we do that as an alternative to simply merging the variations into the main Sega Genesis article, and we're in the middle of discussing that. I would recommend reverting that move until we figure out which direction we want to go with it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever someone is confused about the nature of a list article, its always best to add "list of" in front of its name to clarify. You can never be too obvious. And the name change doesn't affect the pretend merge discussion. Nothing would be merged in this case, its just a way to get around going to a proper article for deletion which they aren't likely to succeed in their goal of destroying it. DreamFocus23:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tribune Entertainment edit warring
Your recent editing history at Tribune Entertainment shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
I'd appreciate if you would take another look at the RfC discussion on the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. As you may be aware, I proposed specific text for consideration on 16 Aug in the discussion thread. I hope you will comment on that specific proposal. Dezastru (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? You want to make it sound like he is a racist, when he clearly is not. There is no possible reason to mention the race of the people he called 911 about in any form, since race had nothing to do with him calling to report them. DreamFocus20:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. It'll just get deleted. They could've just changed the name of the last article and done some trimming as necessary, but decided to delete it. Putting the bulk of the deleted content, the same exact information, in a new article, will most likely be deleted as well. If you want to do it, then ask the closing administrator to userfy it on your talk page, and you can then copy and paste sections over easily. You can also create a page for it at the abuse.wikia.com DreamFocus12:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you mean that we indiscriminately copy all the old material to a new name, then yes, that would probably get deleted because it would remain to be improper synthesis - please read WP:SYNTH. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List articles
Hi, Dream Focus. I'm in the process of completing a feature on the topic of "List article management" for WP:VG's newsletter and I was hoping to make this article include views from Wikipedians of several different perspectives. I've contacted a number of editors with whom I've interacted in the past (both in conflict and in cooperation), and several of them have agreed to help provide views for the article. I was hoping for two views at the very start to introduce the idea that inclusive "list of..." articles are one of the things that set Wikipedia apart (in a good way) from traditional encyclopedias. Sadly only one of the editors I contacted about this issue was available to provide a view. I've seen your arguments at AfD in favor of keeping "List of..." articles, and I think you might be well-suited to writing a few sentences covering this topic if you have the time. The newsletter is due out by October 3 so I apologize for springing this on you at the last second, but if you are interested in helping then you can find a draft of the article in my sandbox: User:Thibbs/Sandbox7. The part where I need one more quote is up at the top and you can just replace the dummy name "User:XXXXX" with your name. Please don't feel pressured, though, because I can always rework the article's top half if need be. I completely understand if you don't have time. Either way, thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
It wasn't a test, it just didn't work. It works when I do it on my user and talk page, just not on an article page apparently. Any idea how to make it work? Might not make any difference though. I notice that its always an IP address in the same range, thus surely the same person, that goes around to various articles adding that same category back into them, only to be reverted time and time again. DreamFocus19:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kill Screen
Oops. It looks like I got a little carried away when editing Kill screen, and I didn't look very closely at your edit. It seems as though we were both trying to add the same Ars Technica article as a source at the same time, and I assumed that you were simply reverting the page. My version uses citation templates and has minimalist, stubby language culled directly from the sources, instead of the original text, which is not currently supported by the citations offered. It's not an issue to me, though. I'll self-revert to your version, if you want. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just used the Wikproject video game custom Google search for "dig dug" and "kill screen" and found that article, so restored the deleted content with that reference put in there. Making it shorter is fine, I don't really care. I believe the Super Mario Bros surely has a reliable source out too there somewhere covering it, but I was unable to find one. DreamFocus22:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a long time trying to find one, but there just don't seem to be any reliable sources that specifically call it a "kill screen". I did find one or two that referred to it as famous glitch, but that's not really the same thing. Subjectively, it seems to count, but I can't validate it in any reliable sources. I forgot about that custom google search. Thanks for reminding me. That probably would have saved me some time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of film clichés, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chase (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi, I've received your message but given that it's now over 24 hours since the last vandalism I'm not sure it needs semi-protection for now. For the record I'm only about intermittently at the moment so you'll probably get a quicker response on WP:AIV or WP:ANI than on my talk page. Lankiveil(speak to me)11:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Dragon Ball et al
I was wondering, is there a limit to the number of times someone can repeatedly attempt to re-merge or delete an article. While Ryulong did the AFD and subsequent merge at Dragon Ball after twice blanking and redirecting it out, we've already gone through at least 4 merge battles over Ghost in the Shell and the latest is no different. He dropped out of mediation and went right back to the argument after it was already discussed for 100 pages in length. I simply do not know what to do. It's such a waste of time and Ryulong repeatedly deletes improvements. The Dragon Ball page is likely going to be kept, but this battle over every single page is really disruptive and damaging. I don't know what options I have left. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People like that never give up. If you get a handful of people like that together, they are virtually unstoppable, they enforcing their will on every article they get to, harassing anyone who feels differently until they give up arguing. When I first came to Wikipedia, there was a handful of people on Manga and anime Wikiproject, who somehow decided they were helping Wikipedia by mass deleting manga and anime articles. Large numbers of articles sent to AFD daily for a time there, no way to sort through them all, and most were deleted. One editor, who thankfully is no longer at Wikipedia, would take articles that she failed to delete, and go back later when she thought no one was watching, and replace these articles with a redirect. I created http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page to save as many articles as I could, copying over every anime and manga article Wikipedia had over there, and then doing a full history export for any article that was nominated for deletion. DreamFocus13:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The merge discussion was done on Wikiproject talk page, as well as the talk pages of various articles in this series before. If you want to search around and find links to and list the dates of the times it was discussed already, that might be useful in stopping it from happening again. The same guy in this case started the merge discussion months ago, and then did so again now. How many other times has he tried this? DreamFocus13:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since January the Ghost in the Shell matter has been disputed. Since April, Ryulong has been a part of it which actually brought me in to the full and terrible realization of what is being done in this corner of Wikipedia. Ryulong initially accepted mediation, but was not content to have it be paused while he continued to bring up the core dispute in various venues. I can give a list of pages, but it has happened more than 15 times he's edit warred to redirect articles and several other users express his same sentiments which are best labeled as "extremist" because of the radical interpretation of policy. Some of the users believe WP:PAGEDECIDE allows articles to be repeatedly blank and redirected if several editors agree. Perhaps you caught a glimpse of it at the Dragon Ball anime AFD under "speedy close" entry which stated my protests under WP:BLAR for AFD as "Forum Shopping [with] an incompetent grasp of Consensus policies. [Chris's] perspective on the matter is weightless and he's just fishing for a more favorable outcome." Even the whole "merge" issue is completely against the purposes of a list. There is a deep divide, but it is clear that several members of the Anime and Manga Wikiproject are actively limiting notable content and believe that their destructive and disruptive removals are beneficial. If they do not believe such removals are beneficial than they are WP:NOTHERE to improve Wikipedia and should be dealt with accordingly. I just can't get them to engage in actual discussion or even state why their actions represent improvements - and Ryulong seems to be against it because he considers it fighting against "the fandom". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lucia has just merged the Ghost in the Shell manga to the original contested page.[5][6] Unless I am reading the !votes and arguments wrong, this is the third time it was no consensus this year. And if anything the discussion on the disamb is still in limbo. Given her comments at Talk:Ghost in the Shell (film) and the fact the manga is going to become a GAN when this is over and the game IS at GAN, I think a DISAMB is the best route. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda sense what way you were going to go based on the discussion so I moved the Ghost in the Shell page to Ghost in the Shell (franchise) and made Ghost in the Shell redirect to Ghost in the Shell (disambiguation). As it stands the break down shows no consensus to merge the franchise article, but the disamb idea had more support. Dragon Zero thought disamb would be best and so did I. In another unrelated matter, Shiroi leaned heavily to disambs in the matter. Ryulong was on the fence since one existed, but the way it is now resolves that conflict. I believe given the situation that you'd find a disamb proper under WP:DISAMB - at least until the franchise gets more work and backing to prove otherwise. Since two of the articles featuring "Ghost in the Shell", film and game, are at GAN and the "Ghost in the Shell" manga was "no consensus to merge" the disamb is all the more necessary when the manga is finished and goes to GAN. The fair possibility of having three GAs on three different topics all bearing the same name alone is reason enough to have the disamb be the first page readers see. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The editor that you reverted I can tell is going to edit war and he has a upper hand on the 3rr in West Monroe, Louisiana so please help me out with what seems to be bias and not liking it for a personal reason that we will probably never tell. Jhenderson77720:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also he removed the city in the navbox so it will be off of a article that is probably the main reason why he don't like. So what do you think? Related or not related? Jhenderson77720:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really disagreeing with you, Dream Focus. Regarding the channels thing. The main thing is that there is not a article on the Duck Commander tv series yet. Not even a redirection. Which would probably belong on the tv channel if someone boldly created it. So it doesn't seem right to remove the channels until we get a article on that tv series yet. I will see if I can make a compromise though. Jhenderson77721:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There. How does that work? Also I will create that redirection though. Maybe being the good inclusionist you are. You maybe can find notability for that so it won't link to the redundant link. Jhenderson77721:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we had a navbox for every single television show that's ever been on a channel, the television channel's article would be insanely long. Only the articles related to this should be in the navbox. DreamFocus22:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. I doubt that both A&E and the other channel made many that would have navboxes but I am not sure. I can assure it's not as bad as Stan Lee. Anyways you still don't remove until it's removed from the navbox mostly. Also of course I did it for you and decided to just make the link where I redirect the tv series subject at. I hope you have a Happy New Years! Jhenderson77702:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick look for the book's name in Google news search, and sorted through some of the hits. Only found passing mention of it. It is a bestseller though so going to have reviews out there in detail somewhere. Who wouldn't want to interview such an interesting person? DreamFocus15:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Beerest 2talk02:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"GA nonsense" is not 100% accurate. Many of the most broad articles are not GA, but many specific ones are GA or higher, including many military ones. While 99% of articles are not GA, the amount of work that goes into each article not at GA is not insignificant. It is not a good measurement stick to go by. Also, the GA process requires a full peer review of sorts and that is bottlenecking the process. I've done more than 50 in the last two weeks and that is completely insane. With that being said, I am sure I could do a GA a day if I needed to, but it takes 3+ months just to get the review started. That's such a broken process that the GAN system is the reason it so few people do it. I can try to fix that, but its something Wikipedia has made as its own barrier. Do you agree? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that after a debate at Talk:Sega_Genesis#Menacer_merge where some want to delete/redirect an article, because it doesn't have GA status, while the other related articles do. I pointed out how few articles on Wikipedia have that status, and that was a ridiculous reason to try to eliminate an article. I'll clarify on my user page. DreamFocus21:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is that he is not apparently part of any "anti-abortion movement" per se, and is "against abortion" but linking to any movement might be not actually called for. The headline using :anti-abortion" is not part of the source, and the source only says "against abortion." Which is likely the proper term to use, and not wikilinked to something which might convey an erroneous impression. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-life redirects to Anti-abortion movements also. The source says he makes an anti-abortion speech, meaning he is against abortion obviously. We all know that "anti" means "against", so anti-abortion is the best term for an encyclopedia to use. Pro-life can be used for things other than anti-abortion, including those against the death penalty. DreamFocus20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you saw the signpost request for an ARS expose (if not it's here). Strange you were not notified. I am new to ARS and really like the idea of it and editors involved. However it seems like there are others out there who would like to see it closed down. I thought about replying but the questions led me to answers that I'm afraid could antagonize deletionists and/or draw attention to myself as an inclusionist to be knee-jerk resisted. And since this group has so few active members, a small handful, it's not clear bringing attention is going to harm or hurt. As such I'll add the page to my watchlist and follow not lead on the best way forward. I think a careful reply here could be beneficial to bringing in new users, but I don't know enough about the history of the project or where the fault lines are. Just some ideas it could be better suited to a reply by committee with a re-do of the questions (for example why the group was founded), basically using it as a recruitment platform. Or maybe ignored entirely. -- GreenC17:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you posted I'll try to add something. I'm pretty fed up with AfD at the moment, arguing the notability rules which are continually ignored, beating the same prone equine. Dealing with editors with bars for inclusion so high it would eliminate vast swaths of articles. Pre-determined votes with little or no research (usually based in personal bias), inability to be reasonable and flexible. It's like super-human effort to overcome -- and then often doesn't even work. And this just touches the surface.
I've enjoyed reading your page as you clearly have been through all this and more. It's a great resource and document. In some ways perhaps it reflects humanity and larger issues - tyranny vs rule of law; competition for resources. Someone should do a study. Anyway I appreciate your help in the past and will try to rally here. -- GreenC19:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! I see what you are talking about by checking your recent history. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Achal_Prabhala_(2nd_nomination) is ridiculous! These people don't understand the guidelines. I commented there. I also contacted the three editors who said delete before you found over twenty reviews of the guy's work to ask them to look at it now. Don't ever give up and withdraw your vote. You made a valid case here. DreamFocus20:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I appreciate your help. I withdrew for personal reasons. There's an editor on that page who recently showed up I am not willing to collaborate with. Fortunately we are not forced to work with anyone we don't want too. I think if more people took this stance there would be fewer Wikipedia drop-outs and less conflict. But maybe I'm crazy, works for me. Sorry didn't mean to embroil you into any specific AfD cases. -- GreenC21:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed the Signpost article thing, good job guys! I love the quote "one of the most important WikiProjects of them all, the Article Rescue Squadron." Because its actually true. I haven't been active at AFD lately, my concern there is more the lack of participation leading to bad results. E.g., I stumbled across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strange Universe the other day, it would have been deleted from laziness, not even ill-intentioned, if I hadn't fixed it.--Milowent • hasspoken17:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hi Dream Focus, I actually contributed to look for the sources by editing Achal Prabhala's article. I find that the abundance of sources clearly state the notability of this person. After the discussion was closed I even posted a note on the noticeboard of biographies of living persons (maybe not the right place) because I was surprised on how quickly it was closed. I obviously think the articles is a "keep" but I am not sure I should state it on the AFD; I have no COI but I know this person. Thanks for your work, --Iopensa (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you've been trying to stir up opinions against my username in various places. If you've got a problem with me, my username, or my conduct, I'd appreciate you taking it up directly with me personally. ✄ (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Doom 4 is still Doom 4. They did not announce it was being renamed. The link [10] doesn't show that. They call it "the DOOM beta access pre-order bonus" but don't say its going to be called Doom when the full game is released. DreamFocus16:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I've come back from a little breather in the A&M space and found that tons of issues still remain. While I've been cleaning up a large amount of them, it still totals over 9000 issues. 1/3 articles in the project have some issue. Obviously, I can't do all the work, no one really could keep it all up, but I want a bunch of GAs in the area. Should we fix the issues to improve widely the problem - or should a focus on perfecting individual pages? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't pay attention to the rating system. If you are interested in an article, you'll read it, and if not, you won't. I sometimes check for mentions of things in reliable sources and add in references and additional information, but that's usually about it, and mostly just whatever I happen to be reading about, or something random I happen upon. You should probably just focus on Bleach (anime) as you are now, and move from there. It has 47,111 views in the past 30 days so its an important article. I'm not sure if there is a bot somewhere that can tell you which Anime and Manga articles got the most views, but if so, that'd help determine which ones should be worked on the most. DreamFocus02:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, with respect to this edit of yours at Dragons of Summer Flame, you are quite simply wrong. There's been extensive discussion of which parameters are appropriate to infoboxes, and the agreement reached was publisher and release date should indeed be on the same line. (The month a book was published is unnecessary information). If you don't believe me, then try asking Randkitty, who is an experienced editor, or ask for help from WikiProject Books. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite wrong about infoboxes never putting "two things on the same line", but I won't argue about that here. I've replied to you on the WikiProject Books talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They say he is "indefinitely topic-banned from Marvel Comic". So he can only cause problems in other articles. And they won't ban him the first time he is caught acting up again, but instead only block him for a month. Only his third block will be permanent. Rather odd way to do it. DreamFocus23:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls with guns (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Schmidt, Michael Q.08:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I undid your edit to that talk page. If theweek.com is a "high traffic" web site, consider putting the {{high traffic}} template right above the first comment. If it is not a high-traffic site, then just leave it alone. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its referenced in 951 Wikipedia articles. Facebook ads link to new stories by it now. 104k Facebook likes. No article for the website exist yet, which is odd, it seems to be a major news site, but they don't have an About page about them. I couldn't remember what the template was to mention something was mentioned in the news. DreamFocus20:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kuzma's Mother
You're right; a bomb and a bell aren't connected in normal thought. The connection is that naming the bomb the Tsar Bomba was analogous to the naming of the the other two well-known "tsars" in Russian history: the Tsar Bell and the Tsar Cannon (I don't know anything about a Tsar Tank). However, I'm content with your edit. SkoreKeep (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly I see external links that link to reviews on that site and others. Not the way its suppose to be laid out anyway. Unless someone runs a bot to do this automatically, I don't think anyone is going to go through and manually do it for over a hundred articles. DreamFocus07:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it is important enough, this would call for a task force of maybe two or three people a few hours a day for a few days. I could mention it on one of the projects. I know the best editor/admin to at least drop a note to who might be willing to get the ball rolling. They seem willing to help out in Comic book related articles.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I just posted at the Wikiproject for comics. [11] I don't care enough to bother with it, but someone else can if they feel like it. DreamFocus10:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create it, someone else did by adding people to it, I just turned it from a red link to a blue. I have informed the real creator of this category of the situation though. DreamFocus04:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any award that gets independent coverage in reliable sources is notable by Wikipedia standards. All notable awards should be mentioned. These aren't just some local town's county fair award for best looking pig or whatnot. DreamFocus23:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You incorrectly erased something, and I restored it, then edited it to a bullet list format, adding each entry after finding a source to reference for it. It was certainly not edit warring. Feel free to discuss it on the relevant talk page though. DreamFocus23:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail!
Hello, Dream Focus. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 20:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi. Just want to say that I really appreciate your strong Keep votes on the deletion on most of the Actor pages including Catherine Taber. I don't know if Binksternet is a true Wikipedia admin or not. He/She seems to be on everybody's nerves including mine. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If they start deleting those pages, I'm not sure if I can continue making contributions here on Wikipedia. I wish this whole problem never happened in the first place. I also sometimes wish that Binksternet never existed, but I can't go too far. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We all feel that way at times. It'll pass. Sometime articles are saved, and sometimes they are lost. It all depends on what random group show up to comment in the AFD, and the personal opinions of the closing administrator. That's how it has always been on Wikipedia, no one ever able to agree on any specific rules, it just nonstop arguing for all these years, no end in sight. DreamFocus08:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dream Focus, just wanted to remind you that I sent an email 5 days ago detailing how to get access to BNA through The Wikipedia Library, please make sure to follow those instructions and complete the Google Form. Thank you, Sadads (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You were mentioned on Jimbo's talk page, and going through your talk page I can quickly say that you definitely deserve another barnstar to adorn your rather oversized collection...
I just signed up for it. I guess it'll know my Wikipedia user name or my email and let me in. No special code in the email was given me. No email confirmation sent to me yet, I guess I just wait for that. DreamFocus14:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting for them to restore the article, as is standard when something is at deletion review. If I can't see the article, I can't really form an opinion on it. DreamFocus15:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading it now. Yeah, I agree, doesn't look like its worth saving, since people kill one another over other games and other things they argue about all the time. DreamFocus16:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
Instead of reverting you at the draft page again, if you could provide the actual quotes and time of videos where HL3 is mentioned, I can leave it. I can only see the sources saying it might be part of the Half-Life series, nothing else.
Kotaku "Newell calls the character's inclusion and use of sign language an "excuse to build the technology for signing" in an unspecified game."
Joystiq - they are using the video, and guessing "Valve's Gabe Newell appears"
The title of the Kotaku article is Valve Studying Sign Language For Deaf Half-Life Character. The Joystiq article's title is "Valve researching sign language for use in Half-Life 2: Episode 3", and the Destructoid article is titled "Valve's learning sign language for Half-Life 2: Episode 3". DreamFocus04:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my question, those are just headlines to grab readers. If the sources are using that video as the source, why can't you also show me where in the source it says this? Speculation is not allowed per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYN.--Vaypertrail (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? Do you doubt the information in the headlines for a reliable sources? Destructoid's headline is "Valve's learning sign language for Half-Life 2: Episode 3" followed by "Valve's Gabe Newell has been moving his hands around in very fast, repetitive motions in a room full of people. By that, I of course mean that he's been practicing sign language, and is looking at how to implement it in videogames, most notably Half-Life 2: Episode 3." Secondary sources such as this are preferred to primary sources in Wikipedia. DreamFocus10:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does the Kotaku source say the complete opposite? If I can't see it in the source they are referencing, and neither can one of the other sources, then that trumps their own single interpretation of the video.--Vaypertrail (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread that article carefully. The title is "Valve Studying Sign Language For Deaf Half-Life Character" with the article starting off "While Valve has been largely silent on what's happening with Half-Life 2: Episode 3, a recent focus test at the developer may point to the inclusion of a deaf character that ties into supporting character Alyx's past". Also look at the other two as well. Joystiq has the headline "Valve researching sign language for use in Half-Life 2: Episode 3" and then the article stats off "Valve's Gabe Newell appears to have recently conducted a focus group with deaf individuals in order to learn more about sign language and how it can be applied to games, notably the upcoming Half-Life 2: Episode 3." If you want, ask for more opinions on the video game wikiproject. DreamFocus10:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bring this up again if the article is in article space, the half-life wikia seems to cover this more accurately[12][13] where it makes no conclusion the deaf related content is for HL3, only the half-life universe.--Vaypertrail (talk)
Doesn't matter what a wikia anyone can edit and say whatever they want at, has to say about the matter. We go by what reliable sources say on Wikipedia. DreamFocus17:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[14]. It took me a while to work out what had happened. (I think this is a rare case where removing your comment was justified, but if you disagree then please restore it.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Baby names
..probably won't survive. Can I use this as a test case for uploading to your cultural phenomenon site, is it open to outside contributors? Might as well use a central place. -- GreenC18:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, anyone can add whatever they want. Register a name there and I'll make you an administrator so you can import things on your own in the future. I'm importing that file now. DreamFocus18:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
special:Export is how you get something from Wikipedia, able to save the entire history if the file size isn't too massive. Sometimes the size of the page and the templates combined is too great, so I just get the latest version with all the templates, and then the full history version without the templates. http://cultural-phenomenons.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Import is where you import things at. I just made you an administrator, so you should be able to see it now. DreamFocus19:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Help me create a Request for Comment asking that Jimmy Wales step down
I want to create a request for comment with some long term members of the Article Rescue Squadron.
This request for comment would argue that the only way to reverse the negative trend of deleting other editors good faith edits would be for Jimmy Wales to step down.
That has no possible chance of working. And most of the threatened content has been deleted over the years already, much of it finding its way to his profitable business of wikia. DreamFocus13:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very sad to see this Dream. For almost a decade you've been a talisman to the rescue squad and all those who've held true to Wikipedia's original values. I so wish I could give you a reason to return to your old activity levels, but sadly I think you're right. This project has devolved into an elitist's playground. Deletionists, serial reverters, witch-hunters, permabanners, tag bombers... These are the folks who now control the project. A few years back a many of us decided the best way to preserve our few remaining treasures was to disengage from AfD and the like, apart from a few sporadic token votes. Deprived of the chance for battle they love so much, deletionists would just move onto to others things out of boredom. This has met with some success, but it's only a holding tactic at best. As you say, no way to bring back the golden age of old. It's been a real privilege and an honor to have worked with you saving articles from destruction over the years, and I know many others feel the same. Perhaps one day with both get our enthusiasm back for this project. Until then take care my friend, and may all your best dreams come true. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dream, you've had a great run. I've always been impressed at how many years you've kept this up. I take multi-month breaks from Wiki all the time, and each time I think to myself "Wow, DreamFocus is still at it!". You should be proud of what you've accomplished. It has been an honor working with you in the squad. In any case, I don't think the golden age is over. In fact, I would take it as a good sign that you can feel comfortable enough to step back a little. While I perhaps I may not have been observing too closely lately ever since the ARS lost its category to flag articles for rescue, I do feel that I'm seeing fewer potential gems being tossed out than there used to be, or at least, those gems being tossed out are of topics of lower potential quality. In any case, Wikipedia's net article count continues to grow every year--meaning creation still far exceeds deletions. No, the golden age isn't over. It is here. And we owe much of Wikipedia's greatness to you. —CodeHydro15:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've had about two interactions with you, as I don't work in the same areas as you, but I know you're a very valuable contributor that the community should appreciate. Wikipedia may be headed down the wrong path, but the way I see it, when good editors retire because of the impending "apocalypse", it isn't helping the encyclopedia, as we're giving the other side (whoever that may include) what they want. If we stay together, we can bring Wikipedia back. In the 6 months, I've seen more of my acquaintances (who were good contributors) leave/quit/retire/semi-retire than ever, (I can think of at least 4, not counting you) and it's sad. Please don't retire. We need you. --AmaryllisGardenertalk15:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Florence Colgate, I've reviewed some sources such as this and this. Though for a BLP, she may need to more sourcing to show lasting notability doesn't appear she became a model, but I do wonder if the AfD focused more on sources if this would pass. Valoemtalkcontrib19:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed I generally agree with you during AfD, however, your arguments needed to focus on sources which wasn't the primary argument presented I think you might have a better chance at DRV, regardless, should have gone as NC not delete. Deletionists look only at arguments regarding sources they don't want the article so they aren't going go through search results. Individual sources must be posted. I have to go through the same thing all the time. :( Note: Actually since she didn't generate more sources since, this probably won't fly. Valoemtalkcontrib02:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions regarding "Lord British" which you might have an interest
Dream Focus,
I recall that in the past, we had discussed, possibly edit warred, an Ultima-related article. For this reason, I'm posting this message on your talk page to inform you of a couple of discussions which you may have some interest:
Hello, Dream Focus. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 05:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I can't log in to Keesing anymore. I never found it to be useful, preferring other services, so I don't use it. Plus I'm less active in Wikipedia these days. You can give my account to someone else. DreamFocus01:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TWL HighBeam check-in
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
If his maps are accurate and useful, what does it matter that he added the link?
The maps are accurate, of the monastery and environs, and locating Shrewsbury in England. SPAM is selling something, he is not selling anything. He is sharing information on the topic, and what I read on his site all appeared to be accurate for the main themes of the series of novels. It is simply an external link, not supporting any point in the article like a reference. Some of the books have maps in them, very helpful to the reader. I have linked copies of the maps from websites in the articles on individual books, as part of the article, to show historical accuracy in the novels, as well as make the plot clearer. I understand that you do not like the author putting up his own site for an External Link, but I might have done so had I still been working on the Cadfael articles, hunting for sources. It seems not a big deal to me, and maps are often useful additions to Wikipedia articles about historical novels / historical mysteries in my view. That is why I reverted your action. Now it is over. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I read his contributions. His efforts in history, complete with refs, got rolled over, so it looks like he tries to contribute another way. Perhaps he needs encouragement to get involved in the articles, but lesser topics than Charlemagne and the HRE, to get used to Wikipedia. He took another path, and still gets rolled over, even on the Cadfael series. --Prairieplant (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its a fan site and thus violates the rules. WP:FANSITE number 11. As far as the map page, it looks like a Google map picture, followed by two maps he drew showing a few buildings. DreamFocus13:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two, please be aware of these notes in WP:SPATG: "The following is a list of common misuses of the single-purpose account tag. You should under no circumstance consider anything that falls into the below categories as evidence for warranting an SPA tag. [...] Frequency of edits: A user should not be tagged as an SPA just because they only have a handful of edits." (emphasis added) Jeh (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It says "The SPA tag may be used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution." It is common in AFDs to show that if someone's first edit to Wikipedia was in that discussion. And there is no need to sign who posted that. Kindly read Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account#Decision-making_tags. DreamFocus03:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you think there is no "need to sign"; per WP:TALK, all comments on talk pages should be signed. And why not sign it?
The text you quoted (""visually highlight") is from the article lede; as you know full well, ledes merely summarize an article and do not cover all of the details. "Kindly read Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account#Decision-making_tags" - it says "Please consult the general test and the "who not to tag" section below, in deciding whether the editor is actually an SPA." (emphasis added.) The section below is WP:SPATG, from which I quoted above. The point is that an edit history with just one entry does not provide statistically valid evidence for an account being "single-purpose"; otherwise, as it says there, every first edit would be evidence of an SPA. But clearly we have different interpretations of "under no circumstances". I'm out. Jeh (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Search for the part about vote stacking. This could be a sockpuppet or a friend of someone who they asked to participate. The SPA tag is often used for such occasions in AFD. DreamFocus03:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Immortality
Hi. I noticed that back in 2009 you commented on the talk page for Brooke Greenberg, where you said that "Immortality is something worthy of an article." [15]. With that in mind, I thought to draw your attention to this: A68 protein. I happened to notice this protein during my medical studies recently, as it is said to be proof of the existence of reincarnation, because people with Alzheimer's disease *ALWAYS* have this protein, as do *ALL* infants and neonates, and it is said to be a possible explanation for why children don't remember much when they are little and nor do people with Alzheimer's disease. This is certainly food for thought! I tried to create a big article about it but it kept being knocked back due to it being "speculation". Perhaps you have something to add to it. Immortality is always worthy of an article, and the current article just doesn't do that pursuit justice. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just search Google news for "A68 protein" and find articles you can reference information from. Unless you can find a reliable source stating the bit about "reincarnation", no way to keep it in a Wikipedia article. DreamFocus04:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's logically obvious, but, per Wikipedia's rules, being obvious and logical are not sufficient criteria for inclusion in an article. We have to wait for someone to say that in a speech. Since it is a relatively new discovery, we might be waiting a while before that happens. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lincoln's Opinion On Slavery
No, it's not as simple as that. Lincoln clearly stated, in confidence and in speeches, that he had no plans to interfere with slavery where it already existed. He supported only the measures that prevented it from spreading, starting this way as a congressman. His Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 was a clear departure from this, using war powers granted to the president to declare slavery in the rebellious states to be illegal. Furthermore, if this was his intention from the beginning, he would have done it much sooner, but it happened only as the political ramifications of the war changed. He clearly had an evolving opinion on slavery reflective of these changes.
Ashrzr (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're relying on Sara C. Nelson as a reliable source? Ludicrous. Try to find at least someone marginally credible. Suggestions such as this should be topic-bannable offenses.jps (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, any news article that disagrees with you must be so ridiculous that anyone who mentions it should be banned at once, even if its from a reliable source. There are ample sources in the article already mentioning those who state other reasons for some of the simple circles, they not all human hoaxes. DreamFocus03:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do know that HuffPo lets anyone who wants to write for them, right? If you think HuffPo is a reliable source for subjects like this, you should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. jps (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Huffington Post" is mentioned in 20,332 Wikipedia articles. [16] I look at the Reliable Sources noticeboard archive, and see people arguing about it at times, but no consensus on declaring it not a reliable source. Was the article by a paid staff member? I see this writer's articles referenced in seven other Wikipedia articles [17]. I don't think they publish anything from any random person. They have 850 employees. DreamFocus03:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication that I can find that this person is a paid staff member. Most of the content on HuffPo is written by people who post for free hoping to get exposure (and perhaps Wikipedia links). jps (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[18] She's listed on their About Us page with other paid staff as the Traffic and Trends Editor. I don't see anywhere where they allow anyone to post at. DreamFocus04:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read the FAQs. One way HuffPo works is that they try to elevate their bloggers into careers similar to the way the WMF does it. It looks like she was also angling for a French job: [19]. Using this writer as a reliable source is like using Wikipedia as a reliable source. jps (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She is a paid editor for them. And I believe if 20,332 Wikipedia articles site this as a reliable source, then it probably is, regardless of one person says. Since I wasn't trying to add anything to the article, there plenty of reliable sources there already proving some believe some crop circles were made by natural forces instead of just hoaxes, I don't see any reason to be having this conversation to begin with. Also I erased my post on that talk page two minutes after I made it [20], because I decided I didn't want to have a pointless discussion like this, and then after it was erased, you still felt the need to come here and argue with me about part of it, and post nonsense on the Fringe theories noticeboard about it as well. [21]DreamFocus14:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There simply are not any high-quality sources which identify crop circles as being caused by natural forces. Using HuffPo as a go-to is just indicative of the low-quality sourcing that we have for this claim. jps (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I lost interest in the show after a few episodes and never bothered reading the books. I just created that article since I noticed there wasn't one yet, despite the first book being a bestseller. DreamFocus12:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dream Focus. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Penetration Angst, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not a valid speedy criterion, and A7 doesn't apply to films. Consider PROD or AfD. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found one or two reviews, including one which awarded it the title Trashfilm des Monats Juli, but I agree it doesn't look like meeting NFILM. JohnCD (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As are you and the various IP addresses you use to vandalize articles. Seriously kid, get a life, and get over yourself. This is just plain pathetic. DreamFocus00:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. FortunaImperatrix Mundi15:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You undid your speedy deletion noting your mistake that that book just copied information from Wikipedia[22], but you left this pointless thing on my talk page. Also I didn't create the information in that article, just split off information from another one, and it apparently then got renamed and more information added, not sure, and don't really care. DreamFocus15:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, to avoid canvassing I've tried to contact equal numbers of people who voted on both sides; unfortunately meaning that I've had to dig up quite old discussions in some cases. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DreamFocus: in this edit, you are obviously making a charge at some editors of POV editing--even of censorship, "whitewashing". Please refrain from using such terminology: it violates AGF and is needlessly inflammatory. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They can accuse people of adding in information to "victim blame" someone, but I can't point out they are clearly just trying to keep it out to whitewash it, by keeping relevant information out such as the criminal convictions the person had involving a gun and shooting someone in the past, etc? Whitewashing (censorship) is clearly going on here. DreamFocus18:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop pestering me with your nonsense. They were clearly trying to whitewash the article, which happens every single time one of these articles is made. To eliminate clearly valid encyclopedic information, because you fear it might make people think negatively about the person, is ridiculously bias and should not be tolerated. DreamFocus20:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dream Focus. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Sorry about the Punisher thing. That was pretty immature of me, I've been really frustrated recently by all the fans who don't read recent comics coming in being "not my Punisher" about the fact that the mainstream 616 version of him is now a Iraq veteran. Sorry.★Trekker (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Manga Wiki
I have read your article that you left for me. As the Shinma on the Manga Wiki are considered MOTD, they would go well in the same category as the monsters from Sailor Moon, Tokyo Mew Mew, and any other anime that uses MOTD. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked it up, but all I see for MOTD is message of the day. Does it have another meaning? Anyway, once you get administrative rights you can easily do full history imports of any other article threaten for deletion, or just being replaced by a redirect. DreamFocus19:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeking independent and neutral viewpoints on the article ThoughtAudio, which is being considered for deletion. If you have a few minutes to review it, I would appreciate your article contributions and opinion on the decision as to whether it merits being retained and improved, or deleted. ThoughtAudio was targeted by the same editor that made a failed attempt to delete the wikiquote article Michael Scott Gallegos. There are only 3 reviews/votes so far. I am hoping that a minority viewpoint as to the worthiness of the article will not prevail. My work is mainly in the creation of new wikiquote articles @ELApro and time is rarely spent in unproductive controversy. I am a long time editor for Wikipedia, but have not created many articles here. I would much appreciate your advice and/or contributions with regard to the process. ELApro (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You said you doubted that any of the stuff 2A02:C7D:4500:2200:2550:8859:C74:8A7F added is true, so I thought I'd let you know that I know the stuff about Pocket Raceris true. Not that the section was needed though, as it was already mentioned. Adam9007 (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Episodes of the Outer Limits external links
Your edits of over 3 years ago need to reverted. First of all, Tv.com is a legitimate external link for television episodes. They shouldn't have been removed. Some of the other links to scifi.com and a Outer limits page were fine.
But your links to Hulu.com aren't per both WP:ELNO and WP:ELREG.
ELNO says- "Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation.[5] See § Sites requiring registration." Hulu isn't the site itself.
ELREG says- "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the website itself is the topic of the article (see § Official links) or the link is part of an inline reference (see Wikipedia:Citing sources)."
The Hulu links at the time were the only place you could legally watch it, and no payment was necessary to watch them back then. The links to the scifi page were all dead links. I see here [23] you removed my hulu link to add a link to a TV.com page that just shows links to Hulu. [24] Unnecessary middleman. DreamFocus17:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the TV.com links give any additional information not in the article. So what's the point of having them there? DreamFocus18:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tv.com is like Imdb. They both contain a list of cast and crew, a brief synopsis of the episode, and information like it first aired. In the case of Star Trek episodes with an article, the article links to both tv.com and imdb pages for that episode....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?11:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have undone your changes on the “Army Men: RTS” page. Tan units is not tank units. It is a fictional Tan Republic's army units. Type “Army Men Tan Republic” into Google for more info. Thanks. Disket01 (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen him in AFDS before where everyone else said keep and tried to explain things to him, and he would not stop arguing with every single person, refusing to listen. DreamFocus05:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've done so many revdels recently relating to hiding revisions with copyright violations in them that I hit the button to hide the edit contents rather than the edit summary on those two. They're gone now. Hut 8.520:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright warning
Hi, I know you and Hijiri88 also seem to be having content issues in addition to the copyright issues, so I want to leave a note personally without the clutter of questions or the back and forth with another editor. You are clearly trying to paraphrase, that is good. The issue is that you are engaging in what we call close paraphrasing, which constitutes a violation of our copyright policy, even in very short amounts. You must right everything in your own words, full stop. If paraphrasing is too difficult, try to summarize. Any content that is a copyright violation must be hidden from the archives via revision deletion. Please also be very careful going forward with this.
I know you are trying, but repeated copyright violations lead to blocks, and most copyright blocks are indefinite (not infinite) until we can work out a plan with the user on how they can avoid the issues in the future (and I'm not saying I'm going to block you now, I just want you to be aware of the situation going forward). I'll take a closer look, but I think that at this point, there is enough to open a WP:CCI to try to see if there are anything in older articles that has been missed over the years. Please be very careful going forward not to lift text from online sources and only superficially change it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
News sources paraphrase what politicians say all the time, but whatever. Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#When_is_close_paraphrasing_permitted? I was told instead of just quoting someone it best to paraphrase, but apparently its not always possible, so some prefer just to have a lot of quotes in article instead. Do you agree with his edits to my work at [25]? As for the Mottainai Grandma article, the hidden edits have the same information as the current form, there not much difference. So I have no idea why you just hid those edits away. I don't see any way to rewrite such brief simple information. DreamFocus16:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrasing is allowed, the question is if it is close paraphrasing and whether or not there are legitimate other ways to say something. The problem occurs when entire clauses of sentences match both in wording, order, and grammar. The issue on Mottainai Grandma was a very simple fix, we just changed a word and eliminated a few on the end: it had the same meaning, but it didn't copy from the text where it didn't need to. I do agree that at least some of his changes to Immigration Street were needed in terms of copyright, and as a whole, I think they pulled the article in line with our copyright policy.In terms of quotes, yes, they should be limited, but if you can't say what you are going to say without directly quoting, it is better to have a quote than to present the information as your own thoughts. I hope this has been helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not copy one line of text word for word for Mottainai Grandma. I reworded all of it. I hope you checked instead of just listening to him. The current version is the same as the old, other than the first sentence slightly changed. I see no reason to block the history. DreamFocus16:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source text says The picture book is being published as part of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)'s efforts in India. You said [...] it was released in Hindi and English translation in New Delhi, India, as part of the Japan International Cooperation Agency efforts in India. That last clause is a pretty unique grammatical construction, as the only difference is that you removed the acronym. This is an issue because you copied 58% of the source text's sentence and it accounted for 40% of the sentence in question. There are some things that you cannot restate in your own words (I gave you an example from my own content work the other day), but this was something where it was very easy to fix so as not to be a close paraphrase. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tried thinking of a way to word it, and that's the best I could come up with. Dropping off the last three words make all the difference I suppose. I still see no reason to block the history of the article for something so minor. DreamFocus17:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its a precautionary principle: we certify to our readers that all text can be freely used here, even for commercial purposes, under the CC BY-SA 3.0 licnese. I've seen text revdel'd by admins other than myself for less on much larger pages. The big thing is to remember to change the wording and if possible change the structure and grammar of a sentence. Also, thank you for being so open about this. I really appreciate it . TonyBallioni (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Video games scored
I'm renaming the categories to bring them in line with the film score categories ("Films scored by John Williams," etc.), and for clarity—video games aren't composed, the music and scores for the games are composed. Trivialist (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Template:Article Rescue Squadron Code of Conduct shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. I had a legitimate reason given both times I reverted the same person. He posted on your talk page asking you to edit war on his behalf. [26]DreamFocus19:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, someone erased the two references for that information in a previous edit. The Hollywood Reporter has 862 Wikipedia articles referencing it and seems like a reliable source for this information about the lawsuit. Not sure about TMZ. I see Googling their names gives more results in news media than the Google news search does. [27] Plenty of mention of the lawsuit, but hasn't gone to court yet so I guess doesn't need to be in there. DreamFocus17:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought KEEP was fine. Those who wanted it merged could've just discussed the merge discussion I started. No valid reason given to delete. I didn't read through the rules to see who can undo an administrator or if administrators can reopen a discussion like that. I think he should've just left it be. Since KEEP and NO CONSCIOUS are basically the same, there was no reason for anyone to even argue about that. DreamFocus20:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're an experienced editor. I'm disappointed that you appear not to be familiar with WP:TPO, which states:
Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant. In order to ensure links to the previous section heading (including automatically generated links in watchlists and histories) continue to work, one should use one of the following templates to anchor the old title: Template:Formerly, {{{1}}}, . Link (or template) markup may be removed from section headings, but the link should be recreated at the first use of the term, or in a hatnote.
Your heading of that section goes beyond any useful description of its topic to present a POV and disparaging slant on the section topic. Please put a more neutral, descriptive, and succinct header on the section -- I don't care whether it's the one I used or an even better one of your own choosing. Your revert was disruptive. Thanks SPECIFICOtalk14:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. My heading was proper, since that is what is going on. When people insist on talking about someone's children and saying nice things about them, its done to play with your emotions. DreamFocus17:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello — I've pulled the comments from the talk page after attempting to bring them in line. The issue here is that the user's addition contains a big mishmash of markup that isn't easily corrected. I'll give it another try, but veteran users should be well aware that talk page text needs to be easy to follow and approach. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't excuse attempting to erase everything to begin with. I don't think anyone had trouble following the conversation, not that that would be a valid reason for removing someone's posts. DreamFocus20:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting is a gray area on the platform. It wasn't clear where the post began and ended. Poor formatting isn't acceptable. We're all expected to format our responses in a legible and appropriate manner. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't fix it, you erased it entirely until I reverted you, then you did it again, then went back and fixed it afterwards, I assume because you realized you aren't allowed to erase someone's post like that. You screwed up, stop arguing about it. DreamFocus21:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I intended to simply remove the text and request the user to delineate that it was a response, but figured I'd be courteous. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Best never delete because of format.....correction yes. If your note able to fix the foramte issue leave it to others please. Our rule is ...."material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. "
Its a ridiculously bad nomination. They really should have something people have to click on before nominating something, a checklist to eliminate the most pointless nominations. DreamFocus03:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really care. My only edit there was when I was undoing a vandal that was erasing large chunks of information from various articles. No sense arguing with fan boys nonstop. If the media covers a famous person being arrested for something its usually in their article though. DreamFocus18:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Re [30]: FYI, "YouTube" can be cited "as a reliable source" just fine. It depends on the context. Oftentimes, as appeared to be the case here, the "YouTube video" being linked is a bootleg copy of some copyrighted material, in which case we are not allowed link per WP:ELNEVER, but that has nothing to do with the reliability of the source: citing, say, a National Geographic documentary as a source that you only know from a bootleg YouTube upload is still, normally, fine, as long as you don't link it. (Assuming the documentary is legally available somewhere.) The lead of our Saint Peter article has cited a YouTube video for years. Note that I'm not saying you were wrong to remove that particular piece of text (you weren't) or that that particular YouTube video was a reliable source (it wasn't), just that your edit summary appeared to indicate you do not understand the policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still stalking me? Have no life at all do you, just obsessed with someone who dared disagree with you, and got to follow them around bothering them nonstop. Pathetic really. I know YouTube can be used at times, I have told people examples at times, but I didn't feel like explaining everything in detail in that edit summary since it doesn't matter in this case. And your edit summary for your deletion prod is total bullshit [31], you just determined to repeat the same bullshit lies every chance you get. I don't want you posting on my talk page trying to pick a fight every chance you get. Go find someone else to pester. DreamFocus23:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the real person has a Facebook account it'll have a check by his name to confirm its really him. The links you added were to someone just trying to get money, claiming it was to help someone, but probably just a scam. These sorts of things are quite common. DreamFocus14:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has three reliable sources giving significant coverage in their reviews for it so passes WP:GNG just fine. Articles start off small and grow over time as more contribute to them. How Wikipedia works. DreamFocus11:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puzzle Puppers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To all those who actually click a link offered and read through the entire thing, instead of just glancing at some random things taken out of context and a distorted description of them, thank you. The system only works if people do that. DreamFocus22:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly didn't think anyone would be offended by that. Anyway, what about him admitting he ignored an administrator who told him not to follow my contribution? [33] I really would like a no-interaction thing passed to just not have to deal with him ever again. DreamFocus23:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could just do it yourself. No one is holding a gun to your head telling you to interact with him. You could just... not. --Tarage (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He keeps showing up at the Article Rescue Squadron to argue with me about everything. Nonsense about how me using capital letters when I said an article ended in a KEEP was somehow - ack. [34] There is where you can read that example, he then drafting a proposal on the talk page to stop me from using capital letters. If he'd just avoid the Wikiproject and stop following me to AFDs and arguing nonsense, such as the most recent example at [35], then we'd not see each other at all. DreamFocus06:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
So after the ANI he starts talking about me at various talk pages, refusing to stop, and I respond, so I get blocked? [36] I never said anything to him except when he mentioned me first. DreamFocus05:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I only responded on talk pages after he mentioned me. Please look at [37] He puts things in quotation marks to make it appear I said these horrid things, when in fact I did not use those words at all. Can you point to anything I've said specifically worthy of a block? Once I point out an administrator told him not to do what he was doing there, he starts on the attack, making up quotes out of nowhere and playing the victim. DreamFocus05:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
He has admitted in the past he is looking through my contributions, and isn't going to stop. An administrator told him to stop that, he did it anyway, so I did mention that there, then this starts up again. Why can't this other user leave me alone? He can say whatever he wants about me, but I can't respond? DreamFocus06:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you just give me one diff to show what I actually said that is worthy of a block? Not what he claims I said, but what I actually said? DreamFocus06:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You came to my fucking talk page for no god damn reason. You weren't pinged. You had no reason to be following my talk page. The ONLY reason you even knew about it was because you were VERY CLEARLY following his edits. Stop being stupid. --Tarage (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean literally, one section up, I said, and I quote: "You could just do it yourself. No one is holding a gun to your head telling you to interact with him. You could just... not." You seem absolutely incapable of not commenting every place he does, which is why you are blocked. Next time he says something about you, ignore it. Go about your business. If he keeps doing it, talk to an admin PRIVATELY. And for god's sake stop watching his edits. Period. --Tarage (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He follows my edits constantly, as in the examples I provided at User_talk:TonyBallioni#Hijiri88_violated_your_instructions(archived) clearly prove. Why is he allowed to follow me around and comment and criticize everything I do, but I'm not suppose to keep watch of him talking about me all over the place? If someone wouldn't stop talking about you everywhere, wouldn't you check their contributions and respond? DreamFocus 07:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC
(Please pardon me if I am butting in but) Dream Focus has not used up my goodwill. I don't know if my opinion counts for anything here, but for what it is worth, I think an unblock is in order. I do not think that Dream Focus has done anything to merit a block. James500 (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dream, maybe I can help make sense of this. As usual, you're right about most of this. Considering the nature of the contention between yourself and H, it's only natural you've been checking his edits to see if he's talking about you. Most others would do the same. An admin advised H he should disengage, but he's still been talking about you, and some of his recent edits could be seen as misrepresentation. It's not as harmful as it might first appear - a little unchallenged criticism is not going to harm the high regard many hold you in. But still, on the face of it, there was nothing wrong with you objecting to it.
Here's the thing though - some of the earlier interaction that H reported on the ANI does show he was treated in a very un-collegial way. In the past, critics of the ARS has said things 100x more unreasonable or harmful to the project, but they didn't receive anywhere near the same level of unfriendly treatment. It's some of the older WP:NPA violations that have really done the damage, not any of your edits in the last two or three days. This I think is why Cullen is calling it more or less right on community goodwill. It may seem ridiculous that H can talk about you all over the shop, and you're not supposed to respond, but that's just the way it is. It won't last for ever of course - if anyone keeps talking about you for too long, they'll be the one's who exhaust the community's good will. I can explain all this with specific diffs if it would help - but it would have to be by email as it wouldn't help you for me to post it here. Only posting this publicly as you didn't reply to my email from a few days back, not even sure if you saw it.
I hope that makes sense Dream. If not, it's much better to email me, and probably not post again until after the block, when it would be fine for you to delete all this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, the moment I come back, he follows me to the first article I edited to edit it also. [38] So anywhere I go on Wikipedia I'll have him following me around. DreamFocus22:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The next time one of your countless obsessive disputes with Hijiri88 erupts on to the noticeboards, I will block you for a very lengthy period of time. The community is completely fed up with your disruptive behavior. Consider this a formal warning, and adjust your behavior accordingly. I have given the other editor a very similar warning. Please take my warning seriously. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to simply do the interaction ban thing where we can't interact with each other at all. If you just say noticeboards, that means he can start up again elsewhere. DreamFocus05:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me expand my warning, then, since my first iteration was not adequate to deter you. This warning applies to any controversy you involve yourself with regarding that other editor anywhere on Wikipedia. Ignore them as if they did not exist. If they misbehave in any way, let others deal with it. There will be no further warnings from me. Only lengthy blocks for you. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dream was already obviously seeking to avoid interaction with Hijiri88. If however H does something like further edit Dream's user or talk page, or indeed articles that previously only Dream has edited, then Dream is still entitled to respond. There was no need for your rediculous warnings here Cullen. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
I did not engage him at all. He showed up where I had edited, and I posted on the talk page of an administrator who said we should avoid each other. How is that disruptive editing? DreamFocus04:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: I'm happy to unblock, as long as Dream Focus takes the following advice - Do not talk to or about Hijiri 88 anywhere on Wikipedia. Don't bring him up in conversation, don't post about him on any noticeboard or talk page. If Hijiri 88 comes to your talk causing hassle, there are plenty of admins looking at this issue who can deal with it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) - DF, You are digging yourself a very deep hole right now, The diffs all happened yesterday - Today is another day, I would genuinely suggest you DROPTHESTICK here and now otherwise carrying this on will seriously see you blocked for a lot longer than 48 hours, If H says something about you an admin will obviously notice and act accordingly. –Davey2010Talk19:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After the first ANI ended he went about talking about me on various talk pages and following my contributions about. Two weeks ago he tried to erase part of my user page, I reverted him, it went to ANI, and he was told not to do that. He mentions me yesterday on a talk page and follows me to an article talk page to argue with me, I report this, and then I get blocked. So apparently when he says or does something, he can get away with no punishment, no specific restrictions for him not to do it again, and if I report it then I get punished. Why not just tell him to leave me alone? I did not respond to him this time around, I just reported it to an administrator as I thought I was suppose to do in this situation. DreamFocus19:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Knock off the wikilawyering and adjust your own behavior. Blocks are not punishment. The other editor backed off and you doubled down. I blocked you to stop the ongoing disruption. Do not resume the disruption, or the result should be obvious to you. Cullen328Let's discuss it19:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reply at ANI was completely the wrong thing to say, in my view. I would have apologised for causing disruption, expressed empathy for the other side, and agreed to drop it. Consequently, you are blocked for a month, based on the emerging consensus at ANI. I think there is also consensus that after your block, if you mention H88 anywhere in any shape or form, the next block will be indefinite. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You ask me to comment there, then block me for doing so. He can continue to follow me around and harass me, saying and doing whatever he wants, but if I complain at all I get punished. DreamFocus15:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the "emerging consensus at ANI" is ridiculous, since you didn't leave it open long enough for anyone to respond to what I had to say, and not everyone agreed to block me. Kind of rigging the results aren't you? Why let others have time to respond? DreamFocus15:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to see this Dream. It's up to you old friend - but I would strongly advise you don't post any more for a short while. If you do there is a risk it will backfire on you. I'm concerned that Richie may not have handled this in the best way, and we'll see where we are after this has been discussed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He closed the discussion, so nowhere else to discuss it. Administrators apparently have the power to stop anyone from posting a simple question on their own talk page, or mentioning something relevant in an ANI they started even. Makes all discussions about it rather difficult. DreamFocus16:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DF, If he follows you and or harasses you in any way, shape or form he will be blocked and he knows that, Personally I felt my !vote alone was more or less a pile on and imho that's how I believe that thread went which was probably why it was closed,
Anyway take a month away, Enjoy your favourite hobbies and then come back with a fresh mind - Sometimes taking a month away does you the world of good :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk16:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He won't be punished since he wasn't any of the previous times. Look at the sections above this one to see about that. DreamFocus16:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He will, Now that it's gone to ANI twice and now there's a few more admins watching any issues would be dealt with, As I said take a months break and enjoy your favourite hobbies, Take care, –Davey2010Talk16:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just got blocked for reporting him. I previously reported him User_talk:TonyBallioni#Hijiri88_violated_your_instructions(archived) and was blocked for 36 hours. And I'm not allowed to mention him anywhere at all so reporting him again is a bit of a problem. He can do whatever he wants, then pretend he is sorry and play innocent no matter how many times he gets caught, and I can't even complain without being blocked. DreamFocus16:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dream Focus, sorry to see this. We've done good work together in the past. I think the issue here is basically no one has the time or energy to deal with two adults arguing all the time so it's easier to just block it out and move on to other problems. Trust that if H behaves badly enough, long enough, he will get his due. It's out of your hands now, every post you make causes boomerang. I guess if you can't handle H's behavior (ie. ignore him) then you can't handle being on Wikipedia; I hope that is not true. We all have run-ins with difficult people. I had one notorious follow me around for over 3 years, voting contrary to my every consensus vote, hyper-tagging articles I wrote with inline and top hat complaints, reverts, nasty snide remarks etc.. it was hellish but kept in check by ignoring the baits. IMO an old-shool unblockable playing the long-game is unwinnable, but in the mean time we need your continued support for ARS. -- GreenC16:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dream Focus, as you are still talking about Hijiri 88, even after your latest block for refusing to stop talking about him, I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page for the duration of this block. When you finally accept what you need to do, please see WP:UTRS to seek its restoration. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dream Focus, you need to SHUT UP about Hijiri88, totally and completely, and not utter another word about them while this sanction is in force. NOT ONE WORD! NOT ANYWHERE! I know you are a constructive contributor to Wikipedia, and I'd love to see this block end as quickly as possible with you back to doing what you do best. But right now, you need to simply shut up, and I suggest the best way to do that is to switch off your computer and spend at least a few days away from Wikipedia. If you can come to a decision to accept your sanction and genuinely stop commenting on Hijiri88 (anywhere and everywhere), you are welcome to email me - and if I am convinced by your sincerity, I will restore your ability to edit this page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per your ANI statement of: ""Ignore them as if they did not exist. If they misbehave in any way, let others deal with it.". So I did report him to that administrator." Right there is your problem. When someone says "ignore them as if they don't exist", that means don't ever EVER mention them again. Period. "If they miss behave in any way, let others deal with it" does NOT mean that YOU report their behavior. It means SOMEONE ELSE WILL. It's really not that hard to understand. --Tarage (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just just the rub isn't it. You see; in DF's position, by now, it has ceased to be about what other people do (or do not do). It's about them and what they do—and more to the point, don't do. No-one has a right to reply, a right to vengeance or a right to justice. And if DF repeats and acknowledges that in an unblock request: they'll probably might be unblocked. But it will mean literally letting someone get eventually "caught", and not being in at the "kill" when they are. Or aren't, of course. That's the point here. DF knows this, and he can do this. It just needs consideratio. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room23:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then report it instead of bitching about fairness. At this point it should be abundantly clear that DF should not say ANYTHING related to the issue, and since you're carrying a sad little flame for them, you can be their guardian angel instead. How's that sound? You know, doing something instead of whining. --Tarage (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your email request that you be permitted to remove material from this talk page, along with your promise not to repeat the actions that got your talk page access removed, I have restored your ability to edit here. Remember, you know what not to do! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goatman: Flesh or Folklore? until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD will close before my block ends. Otherwise I'd be there to point out it clearly passes the general notability guidelines. DreamFocus23:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still retired
I am still retired so please don't post on my talk page unless it actually has something to do with me. Also don't ping me if you know there is an interaction ban that keeps me from responding, and kindly don't accuse me or others of something ridiculous and insulting without any evidence to back it up. DreamFocus22:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have no idea who the IP that posted on my talk page was, and it certainly wasn't me since if I was trying to hide behind an IP I wouldn't post on my own talk page. When I got an email saying someone had posted on my talk page, I came here and reverted them and asked them not to do that. [41] Their sentence structure seems to be of someone who is not a native English speaker, and they don't use Firefox browser like I do or all their typos and spelling errors would be highlighted and they could've fixed it before posting.
After I had reverted it, I end up with a ping from someone who watches my talk page for whatever reason, who read it in the history of the page, and decides to accuse me and many others he has argued with in the past of being possible trolls. I find that rather offensive and posted so here. I check and see his response, and its still there, along with some statement I feel the need to clarify.
I retired from Wikipedia to get away from having to deal with this person. Once he was blocked, I went to the Article Rescue Squadron as I have been active with that for many years now, and edited other things on Wikipedia for awhile as well. Once he talked his way out of his ban, I retired from Wikipedia again, since I'm under IBAN restriction where I can not participate in the ARS wikiproject if he is able to post there. That was back in August. Three months later I end up editing again, on my talk page only, to revert the IP posting here and assumed that'd be the end of it, but alas, dragged into his nonsense yet again somehow.
I had assumed with me gone he'd stop talking about me. I would not have noticed if he hadn't pinged me. I checked now to see if he started his previous patterns, and I see this: [42] I find it ridiculous that someone can accuse me of being a troll, despite there no possible reason that could be me, and complain someone is hounding him despite him admitting in the past to following me around for months commenting on every little thing, that irritating me to no end. And of course here [43] he makes the accusation again. So once more he can say any nonsense he wants about me, and I am not allowed to respond where he is saying it because of the one sided IBAN in effect. Ridiculous. DreamFocus03:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still going for some reason
And its still going I see. [44] And also at [45]. So I must once again defend myself from these slanderous attacks against my person. In my long time period on Wikipedia, I have never done this no matter who I was arguing with and how irritating they were. Look at the post made by this person. [46] Broken English, no spellchecker, not the type of thing I'd write.
He claims he thinks its me because the person called him a "self-proclaimed japanese expert" and links to where I once said "Odd that the Prime Minister of that nation, various news sources in that country, and a bestselling writer from there all say the word is a real thing, but a couple of Wikipedia editors who claim to experts on Japanese insist it isn't". [47]. I believe he argued recently with someone else who said that, but can't find it. Hijiri88 previously argued with someone about Japanese articles, claiming it was his "area of interest/expertise", [48] and that person is now banned, and apparently sent him an unwanted email recently. [49] I searched for Hijiri's name and the word "expert" and found that. So maybe its him. I also see at [50] Necrothesp did tell him Ah, the arrogance of the self-proclaimed "expert", mocking anyone he thinks is less knowledgeable than himself.. Probably more instances out there, and it could just be someone who read something, or just used the same words others had.
The post also accuses him of "Anti-semitism". I haven't seen any post of his mentioning Jews, but apparently he got in an argument somewhere with someone about something. If anyone got blocked for that, and is in Malaysia, which is where the IP address used is from, I Googled it and saw that, then maybe that'll help you find out who it is.
The last person to post something like this on my talk page was blocked for being a sockpuppet of User:Jenulot [51], he posting a rant against Hijiri88 also here, and I reverted it. Not sure if a trace would show they came from the same nation or not. It could be either of them or a lot of other people. I don't know how many banned users he has been in conflict with in the past have resulted so sockpuppetry in the past, but it is probably one of those people, and if anyone actually cares to do a IP trace on them and their known socks, they'll be able to determine who is doing this. It certainly isn't me, and I find it revolting someone can accuse me of something in places and I can't respond to them do to a one sided interaction ban. I got an email about the post and immediately reverted it, this happening 14 minutes after it was made on my talk page. Whoever it is, please take your conflict elsewhere, I don't want to be bothered with this. I have other things to do in my life other than Wikipedia these days. DreamFocus14:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed the person posting here pinged a number of people, including me. Why were those names chosen? Did he argue with all of them? I honestly don't see the point in this. Since as soon as I got the email someone posted on my talk page, and instantly reverted it, no one had time to see it, nor would anyone even hear about it unless some obsessed editor kept following my talk page and every action I do and decided to look at the history and then comment on it. Seriously, stop mentioning my name, and just leave me be. This is ridiculous. DreamFocus19:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
unretired
I retired to get away from a certain person following my contributions constantly to find something to criticize, talking negatively about me every chance they got all over the place, and arguing nonstop with me. Since they aren't around for awhile I can edit again peacefully. DreamFocus11:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question about the two way interaction ban. You said "staking a claim" in the closing statement. I have been an active member of the Article Rescue Squadron for years now. I do read and try to participate in every article tagged for rescue on the the rescue list. Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list If he goes to one of these deletion discussions and posts before I do, does that mean I can't post there even if we don't mention each other or respond to what the other says? DreamFocus14:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't have a link to my talk page since there wasn't any room left in my signature, all the code used for the colors in my name. Also I'm going to post your name Ivanvector so you get a ping to know I asked a question. DreamFocus14:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I responded on my talk page where you asked the same question. If you want to ping an editor you need to use one of the notification templates, such as {{ul}} or {{yo}} or {{ping}}, and you must sign the edit where you post the template. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reporting the problems with Jade Love Kids Foundation. In the future, it's best to handle situations like that by making a request following the instructions at Wikipedia:Oversight.
Also, I'm not sure how involved you've been with this and related articles, but there appears to be some larger problems. I don't know when I'll have time to look closely, but wanted to let you know in case you're already looking. --Ronz (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
multiplayer game
It's not worth getting into an edit war over something this basic, but the cite for the definition is to the 2008 printed edition of the Oxford dictionary, and it is quite possible and not surprising that the 2019 online edition may vary from an older print edition. I don't have ready access to the 2008 edition, but unless you do and can verify that an editor "made up the definition, you should assume in good faith that they correctly stated what the Oxford 2008 edition said. wbm1058 (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking the online version is more updated than the 11 year old print version. And I honestly doubt anyone has ever used multiplayer game for anything other than a video game, so redirecting it to where they talk about games with multiple players, which are most of those listed, is ridiculous. Board games aren't called "multiplayer" anywhere on their box descriptions, nor any of the rest listed. Multiple players is never turned into multiplayer except when referring to video games, so the redirect should go there. DreamFocus16:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I sympathize with Dreamfocus on wanting to change Multiplayer game, it was only recently merged and an RFD just last month was to keep it's current target and keep it merged. The RFD that Wbm1058 recently opened did not change this nor was that link re-discussed by any of the participants. Note that multiplayer game is not linked to by any video game articles at this time (I fixed most of them some time ago). -- ferret (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BGG (the IMDB of board games) lists 5,000 board games with rules for solo or are solo-only [52] but I suspect the search is maxed as it stops at an even number of 5,000. It is true video games are way more popular than board games (like movies are to novels) but at least in the world of board games solo is popular. There are also board gamers who play multi-player games solo but that is a finer distinction (though more common than one might suspect). There are also solo card games, etc.. -- GreenC17:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't clear. I said: Multiple players is never turned into multiplayer except when referring to video games. Do the boxes on board games or elsewhere say multiplayer or multiple players? Just checked though, and these days some do in fact use multiplayer when talking about other things. Times have changed. But still overwhelmingly anyone searching Wikipedia for multiplayer game would be looking for multiplayer video game. DreamFocus17:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult case! Merits either way. Pragmatically, the {{Redirect}} top hat to the video game page addresses popularity while primary redirect to a general page addresses disambiguation. -- GreenC17:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that earlier and was wondering the same thing. Makes no sense at all. You'd have to ask the administrator who did it. DreamFocus02:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On 23 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Derrick Morris, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Derrick Morris received a new heart in 1980 his chances of survival were slim, but he lived another 25 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Derrick Morris. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Derrick Morris), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The last time I edited that article [53] was 21 February 2019. My edit summary for removing the pointless poll was (A poll of only 788 people in a nation of over 300 million people done by a newspaper that hates Trump is not really relevant here. Why 788? Did they keep polling until they got the percentage they were looking for then stop?). It is not vandalism to remove nonsense. You can find a poll anywhere to support what you personally want to believe is true, and just as easily find another news source with a poll that says the opposite. No reason to have that in the article. DreamFocus13:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With so many other edits to that article since I made mine, why did you suddenly come here and post a ridiculously inappropriate template? Your block log says you were blocked before for sockpuppets [54]. The last edit I made was asking Special:Contributions/Lotusbloom if they had other accounts. Are you socking again? DreamFocus13:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit here: [55] broke two refs (the Bellingcat and Heavy refs) as you can see in the References section for that revision. I've copied the relevant ref info from that older revision and added them back.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I did not link to anything at the ANI and only mentioned the Twitter bit of his as a possible reason he is going after the voice actor articles. I think that is relevant to the discussion there. And while he is allowed to make vicious personal attacks against people on Twitter, I know no one is allowed to insult anyone here on Wikipedia. I did not think me repeating a link others had posted about the reddit discussion on the page of an administrator who warned him in the past was outing, but whatever. That post did show a clear history of what was going on. DreamFocus22:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your belief that an off-site account is related to a given Wikipedia user is not relevant to ANI nor to any business on Wikipedia at all, unless and until that user links from their Wikipedia account to that external site, as WP:OUTING explains. As far as I know, every other link to the attack post on Reddit which you mention has already been suppressed. If we have missed one, by all means email it to Special:EmailUser/Oversight. ST47 (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update on this for anyone coming by later on. 14:33, 6 November 2019 Mkdw blocked Sk8erPrince with an expiration time of indefinite by the decision of the Arbitration Committee. He did also out himself on 23:07, 3 November 2019 [57]. DreamFocus03:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I got to say. I am neutral on the whole articles to be deleted or not. Sometimes they don’t pass and sometimes they IMO. But I miss the times like editors like you took a stance on keeping the articles and the times you were active. I myself feel like like I am the inclusionist on AFD's like this one. I appreciate your hard work even though some didn’t. Also if you are still active can I maybe place the article on the rescue page? Jhenderson77714:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
When I said WP:HEYMAN this bad boy, I meant add as much sources as possible, you know, WP:BEFORE? It's not enough to just say spinoff to keep them. You need to find sources, don't care if they're primary. That you find sources at all will allow it to pass WP:V and allow the articles to be kept. ミラP03:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I visit all list articles, whether anyone tags them for Rescue or not. And without any references at all, spinoff articles are kept at times. DreamFocus03:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanx Commonwealth races until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanx Commonwealth characters until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sandstein 16:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Wikipedia role models go, you are definitely mine. I aspire to be like you. I will strive to do my best to stop pages from getting deleted on Wikipeida. TwinTurbo (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Calendar. Thanks. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48
Template:Atari game lists by platform has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Soetermans. T / C 16:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Government shutdowns in the United States. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navarre0107 (talk • contribs)
