User talk:Dream Focus
Dream Focus Talk Page
Never hesitate to say whats on your mind. I always try my best to understand others.
between double brackets, user colon and name
Article names
I notice you were wondering how to change an article's name, or if you should "just create a new article and copy-paste all the content over".
You should never just copy-paste the material over; that screws up the edit history. Rather, you should use "move this page", which means "move this page to a new name".
Okay? DS 22:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
They already had a GI Joe page, they just forgot to link to it anywhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G.I._Joe_character_list&redirect=no My G.I.Joe Character list was redirected by someone to List of characters in G.I. Joe. Now, that page is gone, redirecting it to another page someone had created earlier, but hadn't linked to from any of the main GiJoe pages for some reason. I don't recall it showing up in the search either.
Oh well. I think that page is just ripped directly from one of the websites I had linked to. Good source of information. I remember seeing it in that format on a page somewhere also.
No complaints though. Going to go update some links I made to link to their page now.
Am I allowed to mention my Game Making and electronic insanity forum?
Am I allowed to mention my Game Making and electronic insanity forum on my wikipedia page? Or would that be considered advertisement? http://s8.invisionfree.com/Game_Maker_forum/index.php?act=idx ]
Forum Comments
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Jena Six are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Thank you. CJ 20:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, but I wanted to improve the article by discussing what information we should or should not add to it, before going and just doing it, and having people edit it for being too long and having too much information. Of course that was last year, but, whatever. I think once they got the references done to a creditable newspaper investigation, the article turned out rather good, and very informable. Dream Focus (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Berkeley Breathed
These edits need to be referenced. Please read Wikipedia:BLP WhisperToMe (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- As I said in the talk page of that article, you add a "citation needed" tag, if you believe the article needs another thousand references for every single statement in it, or take a few seconds to Google and find one yourself. Anyway, I added in a line, with a reference, just the facts. I do believe anyone could've just read the previous bit someone had put in there, and then look up the Opus comic strip for that day, and read it themselves if they had any doubts about the claim. Dream Focus (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Neon Genesis Evangelion RE-TAKE
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
RE-TAKE AfD
You seem to really be getting into it. I support the effort (in my modest, weary way); but I feel I must warn you so you can be emotionally prepared - based on my 4-5 years on Wikipedia, the Re-Take AfD doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ending in anything but delete. (I will be shocked if it manages to be a merge, or even a redirect.) --Gwern (contribs) 20:56 12 October 2008 (GMT)
- I am honestly trying to figure out what the difference is between webcomics which are based on Final Fantasy, and series like Re-Take. Why is one tolerated, and another not? Dream Focus (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- More coverage in English, basically. Also, webcomics are slowly becoming more mainstream in the English-speaking world while doujins are still extremely niche. --Gwern (contribs) 00:08 14 October 2008 (GMT)
- I was looking over the list of awards for web comics and printed media which made them notable, and noticed the lack of any for doujins. They are the same thing though. Also, isn't it odd that hundreds of people on a website listing all mangas, including doujins, give it a good vote, and tens of thousands hit the creator's website each month, but it only takes four people to say they don't like it, to delete an article about it? Its odd isn't it? With just a small number of people you could defend or delete any article you wanted. And how many people bother to check the list of things up for deletion regularly, or put any article on "watch?"
- The Gantz article was worked on by dozens of people over the years, who liked how much information it had, then awhile back one guy decided to mass delete 99% of the article, simple because he thought it too long. I was the only one around to revert and argue with him, no one else posting an opinion, so I asked for a third party bit, and by random chance the two people that went over there agreed with him, based on the fact that they didn't like long articles. Long meaning they don't want a list of all the weapons and equipment found in the series, it not that many things, the rules Gantz enforces, etc. I'm thinking we need a separate wikipedia for people who like detailed information about every aspect of things, and have a set logical set of rules, not something vague left to interpretation and personal bias of a small number of random people who happen by. What do you think? Dream Focus (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree completely. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
policy change
I am sorry that you feel bad that Re-Take is getting deleted; while I personally think it a very bad series, then again, I think the same thing about "Angelic Days" but I am forced to grit my teeth and keep the article on it here: it's not a matter of that I want to push you around or quote rules to my benefit through loopholes (I hate it when people do that): but putting Re-Take here would violate many major rules. The problem is that its unlicensed and unofficial (and you can't really prove that it is "popular"; alright, one of my pet peeves about Re-Take is a think a few people are very hardcore fans about it, but that doesn't mean it has widespread popularity; this doesn't matter though). So if you really want to get it on, you can't just make an article for it: my suggestion would be that you have to bring up for policy debate, "can we include unlicensed fanfiction? and I...guess, that you'd start by going to the "Talk" page of "WikiProject Anime and Manga", and then raising the question there. Look how many other editors on the "Delete" article want to delete it for these reasons; its not a matter of me pushing you, but really, the *current* rules won't allow it. And if its something you really love, your best course would be to try to change the rules. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestion. I have just finished posting my suggested rule changes and a rational for them being necessary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Suggest_policy_change.__Can_we_include_unlicensed_fanfiction.2Fdoujinshi.3F Dream Focus (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Notability of Chasing the Sunset
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/35/Information_icon.svg/62px-Information_icon.svg.png)
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Chasing the Sunset, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I messed up on that one. After www.trafficestimate.com failed to give me a reading for that webcomic's site, I went to alexa, and misread the information. I originally stated in the article it had 1.3 million hits in that time period, then erased it when I realized that number is the ranking, meaning there are 1.3 million sites more popular than it apparently, and it only has 800 to a thousand people at the most viewing on any given day. My mistake. If the articles and awards for it found on various sites I've reference aren't notable enough, then I won't bother objecting to its deletion. I really thought it had a lot more viewers than that when I created the wikipedia article about it. Dream Focus (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
voltron
Horrified by the senseless destruction of perfectly valid and interesting information on the Voltron article, I informed a key contributor to it of the Wikia, encouraging him to start one there, and become its administrator. Alas, he wasn't interested in that, so I created it myself and copied information over, and added to it just a bit over time. Feel free to join in. Dream Focus 16:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
[1] this is an earlier version also i would recommend checking the voltron article between 6 and 10 of October
Dwanyewest (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom Candidacy - Questions et al
Hey - I've formatted your discussion and question pages for the Arbcom Election. You might notice that the list of General Questions has also been posted to the Questions page; you'll want to answer those when you get a chance. Beyond that, please ping me with questions - and Good Luck! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 00:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll look into that now. Dream Focus (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom questions
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.
- What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
- Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
- Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
- How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
- What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
- Why do you think users should vote for you?
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
wikipedia policy about moving information to and then linking to wikis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction) under the section titled "A note of caution" shows that when different editors see some things as unencylopedic garbage, while others believe it should remain, its best to just move it over to a wiki and add a link.
Part of it reads:
Editors should also take advantage of non-Wikipedia wikis that follow the GFDL that may provide more details about a given fictional work. These can not only be used to augment brief descriptions of fictional topics, or can be used to relocate material that has been deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia. Links to such wikis should be placed as an external link to the articles in question.
Yep. That's what it says. So I'm going to do that now. Adding in some links. Dream Focus (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The "garbage" I moved into Total Annihilation: Kingdoms
I would say something regarding AGF, but I totally messed up and merged the material (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards received by Total Annihilation) to the wrong article; it should have been moved to Total Annihilation. For that, I get a second helping of trout! Sorry for the mess-up; I will revert the merge and redo it. MuZemike (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- On second thought, you already took care of it, so I will leave as-is. FYI, I would be the last person to "jam garbage" (aka cruft) into an article without good reason, like a merge resulting from an AFD. MuZemike (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- The garbage was the list of locations, not the awards. I erased the list of locations, which in fact was garbage, it doubling the size of the article with things you never needed to know in the game or would care about. No problems with the awards being there since that is relevant to the game. But its for TA, not TA: K. Oh well. Dream Focus (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK. The fact remained that it had to be merged as a result of the recently-closed AFD. I would otherwise very much agree with you that it's unnecessary and excess information. But hey, that's what happens sometimes when users want such information merged just for the sake of inclusion. MuZemike (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- The garbage was the list of locations, not the awards. I erased the list of locations, which in fact was garbage, it doubling the size of the article with things you never needed to know in the game or would care about. No problems with the awards being there since that is relevant to the game. But its for TA, not TA: K. Oh well. Dream Focus (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Xrifle1.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Xrifle1.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 12:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I added in the paperwork, so its fine now. I believe it meets all requirements, as do the rest. Dream Focus (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Buccoo1.jpg/200px-Buccoo1.jpg)
- Thank you Guettarda Dream Focus (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Messages
Re this, if you have a personal comment for a specific editor, leave it on their talk page, not the article talk page. I've read and removed it since it had nothing to do with the article and was just a personal message for me. Also, do not use comments to make bad faith remarks as you did here. I did not delete it impulsively, and despite your edit summary I see you did nothing but restore a fairly useless line without an actual source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- It was not a personal attack against you. Assume good faith. When you deleted the part of the article someone had just added, your stated reason was "source?". As I pointed out on the talk page, it took me a few seconds to look it up on Google, and find that Amazon sold it. And my comment was about something related to the article, and thus had a reason to be on the talk page for that article. And I did not simply "restore a fairly useless line", but in fact something valid to the article itself. You have a history of compulsively deleting things, and then claiming everyone is making personal attacks against you. Dream Focus (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your message was personally directed, not about the article in general. You didn't just restore and said "source found" you specifically attacked me for not having time to go do someone else's work. Nor was the message about the article at all, it was purely you making a comment at me. And your last remark only shows you were not AGFing but looking for an excuse to make a snide remark about me. I do not have a history of "compulsively deleting" and I only note a personal attack when there is one, such as in that statement which is obviously intended to be an insult. I also undid your recent edit as you completely messed up the reference. Amazon.com is the publisher of Amazon.co.jp, NOT Shueisha, nor is it necessary or desirable to shove an IBSN in the middle of the text for a minor work. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- "you specifically attacked me for not having time to go do someone else's work." Someone else's work? You believe you should just delete something, without bothering to check for a source yourself, or tag it. That is something you have done in the past, to the Gantz article, and elsewhere. And if you don't have time to spend three seconds Googling, then you shouldn't have time to edit at all. I am not insulting you, but complaining about your horrible editing practices. Dream Focus (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Someone else's work as in proving a work existed, and considering the IPs other edits, it didn't seem particularly plausible. And I realize you have an ax to grind but really, take it elsewhere or get over it. Your hideous amount of bad faith here and claims of "horrible editing practices" are blatantly ridiculous and nothing but unfounded claims. My edits to the Gantz article were largely upheld by the project, as have other clearing out of unsourced stuff that you personally might like, but that doesn't belong here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- You see nothing wrong with simply deleting something without bothering to check it out for yourself. That is a horrible editing. And now you claim that I'm using "hideous amounts of bad faith" by criticizing what I believe most would agree are in fact horrible editing practices. And most of what you deleted in Gantz, just got put back in various side pages. And what has editor IP 76.66.198.171 ever done which would make you believe his claim wasn't plausible? So much so that you'd just delete it, without bothering to spend three seconds to Google and see for yourself whether the manual existed or not? Dream Focus (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, it is not horrible editing. That's your personal view, and you're welcome to it, but it is not horrible editing at all. Unverified information that lacked even basic details beyond a claimed ISBN and an attempt to wikify an obviously unnotable book (if it existed) seemed spurious and the IP's only edit to the Gantz realm was to shove a Sci-Fi banner on the page. At most, you could say I was rushing (as, if you check my contribs, you'll see I was leaving at the time), but that was certainly no reason for your unfounded personal remarks, nor your then turning around, restoring, without apparently having 3 seconds yourself to add the reference (funny how that worked), then when I came back and added a valid reference and corrected it, you turned around and tried to mess it up for no other reason that an apparent ignorance in the ways of citations. Most of what was deleted got put on various side pages because of fans who refuse to accept reality and just keep moving it around, and the project concentrating on other series right now. When the project does return to Gantz, most of that stuff will be gone again for good. (and FYI, why do you keep saying to google when I could just go straight to Amazon.co.jp? Why waste steps?). Anyway, this is obviously a pointless conversation as you seem determined to just find reasons to complain about my editing, so enjoy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- You see nothing wrong with simply deleting something without bothering to check it out for yourself. That is a horrible editing. And now you claim that I'm using "hideous amounts of bad faith" by criticizing what I believe most would agree are in fact horrible editing practices. And most of what you deleted in Gantz, just got put back in various side pages. And what has editor IP 76.66.198.171 ever done which would make you believe his claim wasn't plausible? So much so that you'd just delete it, without bothering to spend three seconds to Google and see for yourself whether the manual existed or not? Dream Focus (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Someone else's work as in proving a work existed, and considering the IPs other edits, it didn't seem particularly plausible. And I realize you have an ax to grind but really, take it elsewhere or get over it. Your hideous amount of bad faith here and claims of "horrible editing practices" are blatantly ridiculous and nothing but unfounded claims. My edits to the Gantz article were largely upheld by the project, as have other clearing out of unsourced stuff that you personally might like, but that doesn't belong here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- "you specifically attacked me for not having time to go do someone else's work." Someone else's work? You believe you should just delete something, without bothering to check for a source yourself, or tag it. That is something you have done in the past, to the Gantz article, and elsewhere. And if you don't have time to spend three seconds Googling, then you shouldn't have time to edit at all. I am not insulting you, but complaining about your horrible editing practices. Dream Focus (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your message was personally directed, not about the article in general. You didn't just restore and said "source found" you specifically attacked me for not having time to go do someone else's work. Nor was the message about the article at all, it was purely you making a comment at me. And your last remark only shows you were not AGFing but looking for an excuse to make a snide remark about me. I do not have a history of "compulsively deleting" and I only note a personal attack when there is one, such as in that statement which is obviously intended to be an insult. I also undid your recent edit as you completely messed up the reference. Amazon.com is the publisher of Amazon.co.jp, NOT Shueisha, nor is it necessary or desirable to shove an IBSN in the middle of the text for a minor work. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- You call it "an obvious unnotable book", despite it being an official manual about the series the article was dedicated to. And yes, I thought Publisher meant the publishing company, but in fact, when using cite web, it lists where the information about the subject was published at. A simple mistake. Unlike you, I have no problems admitting my occasional mistakes. And what project are you referring to? The only reason you were able to erase so much of the Gantz article last time was because no one but me was around to protest, and when I asked for a third party opinion, the two people that stumbled over simply said it was too long, and did not answer my question about the content being valid at all. Now that there are other editors around participating in the Gantz article, I don't think I'd have trouble undoing any mass deleting you tried to pull. Dream Focus (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is an obviously unnotable book per wikipedia standards. Being an official manual for the series is irrelevant (see WP:BK for book notability guidelines). It is an extremely minor work within the entire franchise/series. And I admit my mistakes, when I actually make them (and do note, again, that I was the one who sourced the claim, not you). The project? The Anime and manga project which oversees it and supported the removal of the bad information, and yes, you would have trouble undoing it. The project supports article clean up and improvement, not glutting articles with inappropriate and excessive plot and in-universe information, as can easily be seen by actually participating in the project and seeing our many other clean up efforts. Maybe if you read up some the anime/manga guidelines, such as the MoS and writing about fiction, you might better understand why the information was removed, but somehow, I think you don't care about those at all, nor do you really seem to actually want Gantz to be a good article, just one that is good for you.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is notable as pertaining to the Gantz article. And it is notable on its own, since it was written by a notable and bestselling writer, although I don't know how high its own sales figures were. Lot of detailed information in there, which anyone who was interested in the series, and thus the reason they'd come to the wikipedia article about it, would be interesting in knowing about. Too bad they still haven't released an English version yet. And I care about making an article interesting for people who are actually care about the subject, not keeping it short for the occasional skim reader. Dream Focus (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- That isn't how Wikipedia notability works. Notability is not inherited nor is it notable by being written by the author of Gantz. Anyway, obviously this conversation is done, but thank you for letting me know about your restoring that content elsewhere. Of course, you are already aware that it has now been AfDed as it, again, is not appropriate material for Wikipedia, as was explained to you in August. Try to leave the incivility out of the AfD discussion, though, and just let the discussion take place. If your view that this equipment list is appropriate and notable is correct, others will support it without your bringing this argument there. Thanks and have a nice night. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is notable as pertaining to the Gantz article. And it is notable on its own, since it was written by a notable and bestselling writer, although I don't know how high its own sales figures were. Lot of detailed information in there, which anyone who was interested in the series, and thus the reason they'd come to the wikipedia article about it, would be interesting in knowing about. Too bad they still haven't released an English version yet. And I care about making an article interesting for people who are actually care about the subject, not keeping it short for the occasional skim reader. Dream Focus (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is an obviously unnotable book per wikipedia standards. Being an official manual for the series is irrelevant (see WP:BK for book notability guidelines). It is an extremely minor work within the entire franchise/series. And I admit my mistakes, when I actually make them (and do note, again, that I was the one who sourced the claim, not you). The project? The Anime and manga project which oversees it and supported the removal of the bad information, and yes, you would have trouble undoing it. The project supports article clean up and improvement, not glutting articles with inappropriate and excessive plot and in-universe information, as can easily be seen by actually participating in the project and seeing our many other clean up efforts. Maybe if you read up some the anime/manga guidelines, such as the MoS and writing about fiction, you might better understand why the information was removed, but somehow, I think you don't care about those at all, nor do you really seem to actually want Gantz to be a good article, just one that is good for you.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of List of Gantz equipment
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
Consensus?
Two comments, DF. First of all, this may not yet be a technical violation of WP:3RR, but it's close, and it is a violation of the spirit thereof. You should not have reverted this.
Secondly, you need to get relaxed and become better acquainted with policies. For starters, you need to read WP:CONSENSUS forwards and backwards. To claim that you had "consensus" for reverting Collectonian's revert of you, smacks either of being ill-informed, or of acting in bad faith.
You do yourself no good by taking advantage of my innocent curiosity in this matter in this manner. (If you don't understand why I consider your actions to be "taking advantage" of me, I will be happy to explain at length. I think it's entirely believable that you genuinely don't understand.) I'm sorry about the frustration that you feel, but these actions are not helping you today and they won't help you in the future. Good luck, I'm blowing this town. Unschool 05:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Read up a bit. I posted asking her not to delete something I saw as valid, she claimed it was a personal attack, and then went on to nominate the Gantz equipment page be deleted. I discussed things there, sought information elsewhere, and then looked around at other articles up for deletion, posting my opinions. She then posted that I'm following her around attacking her, when in fact it seems to me to be the other way around, she posting after me. Anyway, an administrator has been asked to look into this, and I'm interested to hear their results. I saw no part of the canvasing rule that I violated, and asked for another opinion, as is common when two editors disagree with one another. I was not trying to take advantage of you, and don't know what you mean. Dream Focus (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- The thing that bothered me most was this edit summary. You claimed that "consensus" existed that your post was not canvassing. While yes, I agreed with you that it did not appear to be canvassing (and I still do agree on that, by the way), you had no business indicating in your edit summary reverting her that "consensus" existed. I was the only editor who replied to your inquiry. A single editor agreeing with you does not indicate consensus, especially after only an hour or so in the middle of the night (for some of us) has passed. Consensus takes time, and, more importantly, it takes a significant amount of input. I felt that you were taking advantage of me because you were using me to support you in a way far beyond what was justified. That's why I told you to read WP:CONSENSUS. Please learn the ropes, before you accidentally hang yourself with one. Unschool 07:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- No one else had posted for hours before you. And I didn't think consensus required numbers. Two to one, is the same as six to one I thought. Anyway, sorry you felt that way. I don't think waiting days will result in any future post on that subject though. Perhaps I should've said, third party says it isn't consensus. That probably would've been the proper word to use. Since when there was an editing conflict before, between just me and her, I asked for a third party intervention. Dream Focus (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- The thing that bothered me most was this edit summary. You claimed that "consensus" existed that your post was not canvassing. While yes, I agreed with you that it did not appear to be canvassing (and I still do agree on that, by the way), you had no business indicating in your edit summary reverting her that "consensus" existed. I was the only editor who replied to your inquiry. A single editor agreeing with you does not indicate consensus, especially after only an hour or so in the middle of the night (for some of us) has passed. Consensus takes time, and, more importantly, it takes a significant amount of input. I felt that you were taking advantage of me because you were using me to support you in a way far beyond what was justified. That's why I told you to read WP:CONSENSUS. Please learn the ropes, before you accidentally hang yourself with one. Unschool 07:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Read up a bit. I posted asking her not to delete something I saw as valid, she claimed it was a personal attack, and then went on to nominate the Gantz equipment page be deleted. I discussed things there, sought information elsewhere, and then looked around at other articles up for deletion, posting my opinions. She then posted that I'm following her around attacking her, when in fact it seems to me to be the other way around, she posting after me. Anyway, an administrator has been asked to look into this, and I'm interested to hear their results. I saw no part of the canvasing rule that I violated, and asked for another opinion, as is common when two editors disagree with one another. I was not trying to take advantage of you, and don't know what you mean. Dream Focus (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
List of legit media to determine notability
You've probably seen the comment already, but I accidentally posted it on your user page. I'm sorry if you found the action impolite. But if you'd like to know if something specific is a reliable source, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard could help. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 05:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Naw, its fine. I was just hoping someone would make a list of every single news source in Japan, and elsewhere, which I could then check to see if something was notable or not. Manga doesn't get reviewed often in English news sources unfortunately, plus its hard to find the sales figures of anything. Dream Focus (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yea. It's hard looking up notability for manga. There are some sites out there. Have you checked comipress.com or icv2.com? If the manga is licensed in English, I'm sure you can get something there. icv2 has a lot of sales figures if you need them. animenewsnetwork.com also has some good info, although you can't trust everything you see there. If all else fails, check around the good and featured articles. Sorry if I mentioned some you already checked. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 05:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/13916.html only shows me sales figures month by month it seems, and its a rather confusing list. Did all of those big name comics sell so poorly that month? That is shocking. Comic book writers and artists usually just have one comic a month they put out. They couldn't pay their staff if their sales were that low. Dream Focus (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to find the lists confusing too. Although I guess the sales are so low because you have to count the comic's graphic novels too. The sales are also based on sales by Diamond US to comic stores. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 20:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also, one should keep in mind that while they are top manga titles, manga is still very much a niche reading market in North America, and that the economy as a whole is weak now, so people have cut back on purchases of "non-essentials" (not that I consider manga that LOL). Some interesting articles that may help both of you understand the numbers and seemingly low sales more: ICv2 Discussing the 2005 manga market, Projected 2009 releases down because of bad market, Publishers Weekly article on the close of Broccoli. The ICv2 guide would likely make some very interesting reading, but gotta pay for it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, you're so much more informed than I am. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 21:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also, one should keep in mind that while they are top manga titles, manga is still very much a niche reading market in North America, and that the economy as a whole is weak now, so people have cut back on purchases of "non-essentials" (not that I consider manga that LOL). Some interesting articles that may help both of you understand the numbers and seemingly low sales more: ICv2 Discussing the 2005 manga market, Projected 2009 releases down because of bad market, Publishers Weekly article on the close of Broccoli. The ICv2 guide would likely make some very interesting reading, but gotta pay for it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to find the lists confusing too. Although I guess the sales are so low because you have to count the comic's graphic novels too. The sales are also based on sales by Diamond US to comic stores. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 20:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/13916.html only shows me sales figures month by month it seems, and its a rather confusing list. Did all of those big name comics sell so poorly that month? That is shocking. Comic book writers and artists usually just have one comic a month they put out. They couldn't pay their staff if their sales were that low. Dream Focus (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yea. It's hard looking up notability for manga. There are some sites out there. Have you checked comipress.com or icv2.com? If the manga is licensed in English, I'm sure you can get something there. icv2 has a lot of sales figures if you need them. animenewsnetwork.com also has some good info, although you can't trust everything you see there. If all else fails, check around the good and featured articles. Sorry if I mentioned some you already checked. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 05:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Naw, its fine. I was just hoping someone would make a list of every single news source in Japan, and elsewhere, which I could then check to see if something was notable or not. Manga doesn't get reviewed often in English news sources unfortunately, plus its hard to find the sales figures of anything. Dream Focus (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- http://comipress.com/ this has information showing sales of some series. Dream Focus (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- If anyone can read Japanese, this is the official website of the most influential magazine in the manga industry. http://jump.shueisha.co.jp/ It loads in Flash, so the Google translator can't touch it. Dream Focus (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Using WorldLingo seemed to work, although it didn't manage to translate it all, it might help. (translation) --Legeres (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll look through that later on. This will be quite helpful at those times when Google translator fails. Dream Focus 16:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- http://scholar.google.com/ helps find references for scholarly topics. An editor posted a link to it in the cat training article up for deletion, there published legitimate scientific studies for this topic, and thus it convincing me it is a notable enough subject to be kept. Good place to search for other topics. Dream Focus 18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Re:Dream Focus
Uh, no. This is clearly wrong, as the publisher of the website is Amazon, not Shueisha, and it's a website, not a book that's the source you're citing. Your current edits there are disruptive. As for your AfDs, we don't care what is entertaining/fun/nice to look at for our readers in terms of what gets an article and what doesn't. Stuff that doesn't meet our notability guideline is either merged or deleted. If you want to write about whatever you want, then Wikia is the place. As for the Clow Cards AfD, there's three people for merge, one for delete, and a weak keep. The comment at the bottom is a textbook WP:USEFUL and ignored by the closing administrator. Even the weak keep notes that there's a lot of trivial content. Consensus to merge and redirect is thus adamantly clear. Ergo, attempting to dispute this is silly and you're running against the established consensus on the matter. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- That one edit I acknowledged my mistake. Publisher means the site it comes from, not the publishing company. That wasn't what this was about. She is trying to make it look like this is all about that, when in fact its about a previous edit, where she erased the information entirely about the manual, claiming she didn't believe it existed. I then restored it, asking her to Google next time before erasing something, or tag it with a notation needed. She then deleted my comment on the talk page saying it was a personal attack, and coming here to post on my user page complaining. As for the Clow Cards, there is no way possible to merge that much information, or even a list of the core 19 cards with a single sentence description, without the main page being too long. But I've given up on that issue, discussing it with others, and listening to them. Now then, was it right for her to delete my comment on the Gantz talk page? Was that in any way possibly an attack against her? Dream Focus (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- You added it without a source and she's justified to remove it per WP:V. That an anon added it without a source, and that she asked for a source here is entirely within her purview. In fact, your edit summary here was far more incivil. As for the removal of the comment on the talk page, it was appropriate. She noted that you should put the comment on her talk page, as it was directed solely at her and thus was a more appropriate location. As for the Clow Cards issue, all the material does not need to be merged; as the majority of it is extraneous plot summary, it fails WP:NOT#INFO and simply isn't appropriate for inclusion, especially because the majority of the cards are one-episode deals with no significant information past that. To cover them in such detail is giving them inappropriate undue weight.
- And in any case, directly telling another editor to subvert an ungoing AfD discussion by splitting a list of characters out and encouraging them to edit war is not constructive. Further attempts to do so will be viewed as disruptive. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 09:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- You can not erase something like that, without checking first. That's just ridiculous. If you needed a reference for every single sentence, then 99% of all articles would be erased. Just tag it with a citation needed, or spend three seconds googling. See? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gantz&diff=264407249&oldid=264386867
- As for this subvert nonsense, I said if you disagree with an edit, you can undo it. She seems to admitted her mistake after some discussion on her user page, and restored some of the character information she had erased. You don't just wipe out a large section if you don't like it, but instead state what you believe is wrong with it, and what should be changed. And the AFD thing has the majority of people saying keep, so it'll be kept. I'm not trying to subvert it. If she erased the character information for having too much detail, and thus being too long, then you can make a separate character page for it, as others do. Obviously you wouldn't bother if the article had a chance of being deleted. Dream Focus (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- That seems to be part of the problem here. You are confusing "too detailed" with "too long" which is not the same thing at all. Too detailed means it has too much excessive and unnecessary plot detail that doesn't belong on Wikipedia period, not in the main article, not in sub articles. Again, I point you to WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, and WP:SUMMARY. Obviously that article is not "too long" in any way shape for form. Its barely above a stub and certainly not anywhere near the suggested size limit of an article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, originally I was thinking it was because of the length, not the content, when I made the originally suggestion. You still should've just tagged it, instead of wide spread deletion. Now that you are here, please go here, and tell me your honest opinion. Does this make any sense at all, or is someone out to get me? [2] Dream Focus (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- When cleaning up issues in an article, it is cleaned. Discussion isn't always required unless someone actually disagrees with it. It is a stub article (presuming you mean RH), and the clean up is appropriate and something many project members do as part of our on-going and never ending effort to improve articles to Wikipedia standards. The writer disagreed, we discussed, and came to a suitable compromise (and no, it wasn't that "I admitted I was wrong", I just decided it was fine to compromise here if the info was cleaned up and to avoid the issue of a bad and unnecessary split). And yes, the edit makes sense to me. That is an Featured List (FL), so you can be sure it has been edited by experienced copyeditors who are well versed in appropriate grammar and tonal issues. FL means it is the best of the best among lists, and represents the highest quality of articles we have. I.E. its completely sourced with professionally written prosed and follows all relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Also, as Sephiroth BCR is one of the most prolific featured list editor and an FL director (right title?), he is knowledgeable enough to discern what is and is not appropriate wording in an FL level list. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted your edit because the level of prose you were using was frankly horrible. Just an example: "Reika convinces most of them they just stay safe and not get involved." Aside from not making any sense, it's very poor grammar. You're trying to fix an item of featured content in any case. To be honest, it was detracting from the quality of the list, which is supposed to be a representation of Wikipedia's best work hence why I told you to go to the talk page, where people familiar with the series could correct whatever you thought incorrect with the plot summary while still maintaining a high level of prose. And per Collectonian, I am quite the prolific FL writer and am the FLRC director, so I know what I'm talking about, thanks. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I find that hilarious, since I was the one that corrected so much bad grammar on that page previously, it written by someone who didn't know English as their first language. And yes, it should read Reika convinces most of them they should just stay safe and not get involved. And the plot summary does have problems with it. I'm discussing that on that talk page now though. And the Wikipedia's finest work is a page with summaries for a series that has naked large breasted teenage girls, sex, and plenty of blood and gore everywhere? Plus one kid shot up his entire class for bullying him. LOL! Because this is what the wikipedia is about folks. Forget the educational content normal encyclopedia's brag about, and focus on the entertainment side. Surely something to brag about. ;) Dream Focus (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Someone who is capable of writing a sentence as bad as the one described above doesn't have the right to criticize anyone's prose or think that it's funny. My six year-old cousin could write a more coherent sentence than that. Part of the charm of Wikipedia is that our best work can be on series like that in any case. We don't care what the subject is. It's our job to cover them in an encyclopedic manner. Take your "educational content" crap out the door, thanks. If you don't like the material, you're free to not edit. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I find that hilarious, since I was the one that corrected so much bad grammar on that page previously, it written by someone who didn't know English as their first language. And yes, it should read Reika convinces most of them they should just stay safe and not get involved. And the plot summary does have problems with it. I'm discussing that on that talk page now though. And the Wikipedia's finest work is a page with summaries for a series that has naked large breasted teenage girls, sex, and plenty of blood and gore everywhere? Plus one kid shot up his entire class for bullying him. LOL! Because this is what the wikipedia is about folks. Forget the educational content normal encyclopedia's brag about, and focus on the entertainment side. Surely something to brag about. ;) Dream Focus (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, originally I was thinking it was because of the length, not the content, when I made the originally suggestion. You still should've just tagged it, instead of wide spread deletion. Now that you are here, please go here, and tell me your honest opinion. Does this make any sense at all, or is someone out to get me? [2] Dream Focus (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- That seems to be part of the problem here. You are confusing "too detailed" with "too long" which is not the same thing at all. Too detailed means it has too much excessive and unnecessary plot detail that doesn't belong on Wikipedia period, not in the main article, not in sub articles. Again, I point you to WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, and WP:SUMMARY. Obviously that article is not "too long" in any way shape for form. Its barely above a stub and certainly not anywhere near the suggested size limit of an article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Main Page pics
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
§hep • Talk 02:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER
Regarding your response to me in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayu Sakai: No, WP:ENTERTAINER does not apply -- if you look at the beginning of WP:CREATIVE, it explicitly says that it is the guideline to apply to authors and artists. WP:ENTERTAINER is for actors and other performers (though not musicians, as they're covered by WP:MUSIC). —Quasirandom (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually it applies to comedians and opinion makers as well. I believe the manga artist qualifies as that. Dream Focus (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but a manga artist is an author and artist, which is what WP:CREATIVE explicitly is for, so that applies. This has been the consensus in many previous AfDs without controversy. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't recall it ever coming up before, nor would I care if the small number of people around that day, agreed with something or not, while the majority just decided not to argue. If someone fits in more than one category, then they can be made notable by the set of rules in any of those categories. This is how it is for others who fit more than one category. Unless you find a specific policy saying otherwise, that's what I'll go by. Remember, consensus means the perceived opinions of whatever small number of people were around at that time, who decided to post their opinions, and is that by itself does not become official wikipedia policy. Dream Focus (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- True enough. But it's also true that WP:CREATIVE has been cited as the relevant guideline in many mangaka AfD discussions without anyone batting an eye or disagreeing, and silence did equal consent. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't recall it ever coming up before, nor would I care if the small number of people around that day, agreed with something or not, while the majority just decided not to argue. If someone fits in more than one category, then they can be made notable by the set of rules in any of those categories. This is how it is for others who fit more than one category. Unless you find a specific policy saying otherwise, that's what I'll go by. Remember, consensus means the perceived opinions of whatever small number of people were around at that time, who decided to post their opinions, and is that by itself does not become official wikipedia policy. Dream Focus (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but a manga artist is an author and artist, which is what WP:CREATIVE explicitly is for, so that applies. This has been the consensus in many previous AfDs without controversy. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually it applies to comedians and opinion makers as well. I believe the manga artist qualifies as that. Dream Focus (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: Deletionists
Yeah yeah, everyone knows this. It won't help though. As I've said before, Wikipedia's community is controlled by some hardcore shut-in nerds with nothing better to do than circlejerk to their own shared ideal of a what an un-scholarly online encyclopedia website should be. The best thing to do is just leave, ignore it and let them make a sad attempt at turning this place into Encarta. I only come check back at this place because I'm some sort of masochist and/or I have a morbid curiosity to know just how pathetic and rigid people can be. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Personal attacks
Your personal attacks against Collectonian are getting unacceptable. First, to clear the air, I could care less what inclusion philosophy you have. I certainly don't agree with it, and think it's ludicrous and illogical, but you're free to express it at AfDs to your heart's desire. I will never simply dismiss you as a contributor as a result of your inclusion philosophy. That said, tying your posts with clear personal attacks against Collectonian is unacceptable. Because she states that she is a deletionist is no reason to attempt to insert an ad hominem into your !vote that not only has nothing to do with the issues brought up at the AfD, but is simply a low blow at another editor that deeply misrepresents her inclusion philosophy. It's perfectly fine for you to disagree with her ideas, but the moment you go from there into an attack on her as a person, you're passed the line. Also, this serves no purpose other than to be disruptive. What on earth are you going to do with such information? Use it for more ad hominem attacks? Consider this a warning. Further personal attacks may result in blocks. Simply cease with the personal attacks on Collectonian and this will never become a problem in the future. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 15:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- He asked her why she was nominating so many things for deletion, and I mentioned the reason why. She has stated she is a deletionist, that her thing. Dream Focus (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- As for the wikiquette thing, I noted she was involved in a conflict with someone else from the manga discussion, so I went there, and pointed out a lot of people have problems with her behavior, she doing things that upset a lot of editors and draw them into conflict. Anyway, doesn't matter now. And I only voted Keep on manga articles that were published in the most influential magazine in the manga industry Jump comics, stating my reason why each time, it the same reason for all of those, and didn't vote on the rest of those nominated for deletion. I did not just go through and vote Keep on everything she was trying to delete, as some have suggested. And I didn't just start going there to taunt her, I having visited the AFD pages off and on for months now. Dream Focus (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- He asked her why she was nominating so many things for deletion, and I mentioned the reason why. She has stated she is a deletionist, that her thing. Dream Focus (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to make this is simple. Stop interacting with Collectonian. What on earth is your point in responding to her WQ alert? Not only do you not even respond to the substance of her comment, your immediate response is to attack her deletion philosophy, again, as you do in AfDs still. As I outlined above, her deletion philosophy makes absolutely no difference whatsoever in AfDs. Concentrate on the article and not the user. If you can't do this, then I might have to resort to a ban between both of you from interfering with one another, which I don't want to do, as I assume that you're mature enough to stop this behavior. Go write or expand an article. There must be things you're interested in writing, else you wouldn't be here. Practically stalking another user and complaining about their deletion philosophy can't be the reason. And do note that I'm trying to be cooperative here. You go a long way by respecting people's arguments (assuming they're not hopelessly inane) and addressing their substance, not the person. Should this happen again, I'm simply going to take a harder line on this, which again, I don't want to do. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 10:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I responded because I felt she falsely accusing someone of something. And I'm trying to work on the same manga articles she is in, almost always manga related. At the moment I'm trying to figure out why a vote for Merge on the AFD for Akane-chan_Overdrive, ends up with her refusing to allow any of the information to be merged in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mizuki_Kawashita#The_debate_was_closed_on_06_February_2009_with_a_consensus_to_merge My original comments you see there, were posted on someone user page, he deciding to copy them over to that article's talk page, and we got started again. I posted on the merge article to ask about the rules of the merging process, and was told to go to dispute resolution, so I'll end up in conflict her once again I'll suppose. Since I have your attention, can you look into the Merge issue, and tell me your opinion? Is she violating any rules? I enjoy manga, and can't be expected to ignore all manga discussion simple because of one editor. Dream Focus (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- You're responding because you're following her contributions, which is an unhealthy thing to do and is completely unnecessary. It's perfectly possible for you to distance yourself from her. As for the merge, it's completely appropriate. A "merge" result in an AfD does not mean merge everything. It means merge the information per its necessary due coverage. There's no need for a merge of the entire infobox and other content; a mere mention in the bibliography, and should the article be expanded to cover her writing history, a brief synopsis of the plot in the body of the article. As this hasn't materialized, nothing is necessary for a merge. This is a typical mistake by a new user, but your excessive forum shopping is disruptive. And in any case, I'm not telling you to avoid all manga. I'm telling you to go add content somewhere to a manga you enjoy. I'm sure you can find one that Collectonian doesn't edit, and if you're actually trying to improve the article, I'm sure there will be no conflict. If your edits are detrimental to the article and get reverted, it's not a sign that someone doesn't like you; it's a sign that your edits have flaws that you need to address. If you're doing nothing but simply reverting back and treating it personally, then you're not going to go far as a contributor. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I responded because I felt she falsely accusing someone of something. And I'm trying to work on the same manga articles she is in, almost always manga related. At the moment I'm trying to figure out why a vote for Merge on the AFD for Akane-chan_Overdrive, ends up with her refusing to allow any of the information to be merged in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mizuki_Kawashita#The_debate_was_closed_on_06_February_2009_with_a_consensus_to_merge My original comments you see there, were posted on someone user page, he deciding to copy them over to that article's talk page, and we got started again. I posted on the merge article to ask about the rules of the merging process, and was told to go to dispute resolution, so I'll end up in conflict her once again I'll suppose. Since I have your attention, can you look into the Merge issue, and tell me your opinion? Is she violating any rules? I enjoy manga, and can't be expected to ignore all manga discussion simple because of one editor. Dream Focus (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Akane-chan Overdrive
The debate for Akane-chan Overdrive was closed by MBisanz on 06 February 2009 with a consensus to merge. It says merge, it doesn't say redirect, which is all Farix did, he didn't merge a damn thing. He is working in contravention of a posted vote, to further his ends when he blanked the page before the vote. The vote says we don't have to merge everything, but he didn't do anything, and reverted my actual merger which was the stated outcome of the vote. Now this is a WP:POINT violation, done in WP:bad faith. Please have a look. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- They did that before. Merge is the same as delete for them, they just don't call it delete, thus perhaps getting votes from people that would otherwise say Keep. The only information that will be shown is what was already there, which is the name of the series. And the edit was done at 02:21, 6 February 2009, which is the same time as the end of the AFD, it saying to merge. It is rather arrogant of him to have to tried to skip the AFD process altogether, and do that on his own before hand. You were right to protest. You could contact those who voted for merge, and ask if what they would've voted for if they only had the choice of Keep or Delete, and see if that matters. If enough of them say they'd change their vote, then you can ask for the article to be reviewed, there a link to that at the end of the AFD discussion. Three of them I know will want it deleted anyway, since that's what they do all day, but the others I'm not sure about. And you might want to go to www.wikia.com and see if there is a wiki for everything featured in Jump, and if not you can create one. I'll help you with it if you want. Then in the writer's page, you are allowed to link to the wiki, and that'll provide people with information who want to know more about the series. Wikia is owned by wikipedia, but allows and encourages you to add in as much information as you want. Check out what I did with the Gantz wiki. http://gantz.wikia.com/wiki/Gantz_Wiki You can help people get the information they want, without worrying about any misguided people trying to delete things, because they believe they are somehow making the wikipedia better by eliminating articles people find useful and interesting. Dream Focus (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
User page
You know, 'the wikipedia' doesn't own Wikia in any sense. --Gwern (contribs) 15:54 8 February 2009 (GMT)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikia Same guy who founded and runs wikipedia founded it, and profits from it. Dream Focus (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Reverts
Other people have reverted your edits as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Jenkins&diff=next&oldid=268332187 In fact, you have a history of bad edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:128.243.253.111#Final_warning And why not register a name instead of using the IP address? It will prevent you from being confused with others who might share the same IP address. Dream Focus (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's got nothing to do with the particular edit that was reverted. Yes, this is a shared IP address and a lot of the edits can be nonsense, but my edits should be evaluated on their individual constructiveness, not reverted on assumptions. --128.243.253.111 (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Colors in name text
Howdy; came here after reading your comment on Talk:Mason Remey mostly out of curiosity over who you be, and I noticed your 'Color text in names' section on your Userpage. I went through a similar search for info on that a while back, and thought I'd share what I discovered on it. In your preferences you can create a raw signature that is used every time you do the four tildes signature thingy. Go into your preference, check off raw signature and create one like this (look at the code by hitting Edit: DREAMFocus
BTW, thanks for contributing to the discussion; the page is sorely lacking impartial opinions. Have fun. DisarrayGeneral 03:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! And yeah, the most active people people are the deletionist, who gang up and drive away everyone else in frustration. Dream Focus 15:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Could you not get the name working? I see you tried; it doesn't work just checking the box and pasting the code? I sorted it out in the WP:SANDBOX, and it works there. See: DREAMFocus. Will it work if you don't check the raw signature box? I think it works as a signature still, but doesn't show the (talk) and (contribs) thing; but if you click on that colored name I just posted it takes you to your userpage, so I know it's close. I just tried this one which removes the Bold from the code; will it work: DREAMFocus . I know if the code isn't exactly right it won't accept it, but it's so close. DisarrayGeneral 20:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- It didn't work. I used the other method though, and that worked fine. My name now appears deep blue. Dream Focus 01:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- And now its multicolored. It loads up for everyone, doesn't it? Dream Focus 01:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Looking good! I see what you had to do. I didn't realize the span code was necessary just for font colors. That makes sense though. You can also change to different fonts too, like cursive etc by using face="cursive", see: Dream Focus. The only thing I might suggest is to use orange instead of yellow on the letter "a", only because it's so bright it's hard to see. I changed it in my example so you could see the difference. And this is the same w/ bold added to it: Dream Focus. Have fun. DisarrayGeneral 02:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ack! I tried copying the Dream Focus one, but I can't get half way through it. There is a limit to how long it can be when something is entered in. And I was thinking the same thing about the yellow. I'll change that one to orange at least. Dream Focus 02:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Looking good! I see what you had to do. I didn't realize the span code was necessary just for font colors. That makes sense though. You can also change to different fonts too, like cursive etc by using face="cursive", see: Dream Focus. The only thing I might suggest is to use orange instead of yellow on the letter "a", only because it's so bright it's hard to see. I changed it in my example so you could see the difference. And this is the same w/ bold added to it: Dream Focus. Have fun. DisarrayGeneral 02:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- And now its multicolored. It loads up for everyone, doesn't it? Dream Focus 01:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Dream Focus 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC) HA HA! It works. Just had to put all the bold together, and I had room then. Bold open at the start, then at the end, and nowhere else, fit just fine. Thanks a lot! You've been great help. Dream Focus 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's awesome. I had to play with it one more time in the sandbox just cuz I needed to figure out if it could be done. You can change the font style by adding font face=cursive at the beginning, and /font at the end. You can also get rid of all the /span's between every single letter, and just have one at the end which saves space. See:Dream Focus. Or how about font face=Alba Super: Dream Focus. It'll do just about any font style that MS Word has. Cool huh? I've got to stop reading all this code now; I'm getting a migraine. Have fun. DisarrayGeneral 09:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Alternative to notability
Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw you removed the prod with claims that there's a list of things she's has done. Would you mind actually adding them to the article to help establish her notability? I mean, it doesn't do an article much good to claim the existence of notable credits and then just walk away. Thanks! Mbinebri talk ← 18:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- You click on the link to Anime News Network for one, then Google to see the rest. It would've been faster for you to Google for the person, than to nominate it for a speedy delete. Wikipedia policy is to look for it yourself, before nominating it. I added an external link that counts as notable, so that prevents deletion. If you want anything added to the page, do it yourself, or leave it around long enough and someone else will get around to it. Dream Focus 18:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I nominated it for a speedy delete, did I? That's funny, because it looks to me like I used a prod - a prod stating she has no IMDb or FMD page, which would take a Google search to determine. What's also funny is that my previous Google search turned up nothing but one credit (as the Anime News Network site you added verifies) - and on some sites, zero - which is why I nominated the article for deletion. But you contest the deletion saying she has multiple credits. Are you willing to state them? Obviously not, which makes me doubt she has anything else. One credit = fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Did you know that? Perhaps it is you who needs to be reminded of Wiki policy. Mbinebri talk ← 19:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- On the first page of Google results when I search for her name, I see her album mentioned, as well as a television appearance. Checking the Japanese wikipedia for her name, I see she's done other things. Before nominating something for deletion, its best to Google their name between quotation marks, and look through the first few links. And remember, if they are only famous for things in another country, none of which has officially been released in English yet, you aren't likely to find them listed on IMDB. Dream Focus 20:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't checked the reliability of the google sources. But if you claim they are reliable add them. I found a translation of her old stage name: Miya Zawaarisa. This might help find some info. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 21:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see her singing her song on YouTube, and I found the audition she did for the extremely popular magazine contest in Japan that she won, plus I found albums for sale with her name on them. Two are music, the other I think is just live action drama. Not sure. Anyway, I went ahead and added some things. Dream Focus 21:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Youtube doesn't help verify the album exists. So I'll go search for something verifying the album exists. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 22:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I found a site that sells them on the first page of Google hits. Other things make her notable, this just additional information about her. Not sure where to look to find trustworthy sales figures for Japanese albums. Dream Focus 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see her singing her song on YouTube, and I found the audition she did for the extremely popular magazine contest in Japan that she won, plus I found albums for sale with her name on them. Two are music, the other I think is just live action drama. Not sure. Anyway, I went ahead and added some things. Dream Focus 21:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't checked the reliability of the google sources. But if you claim they are reliable add them. I found a translation of her old stage name: Miya Zawaarisa. This might help find some info. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 21:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- On the first page of Google results when I search for her name, I see her album mentioned, as well as a television appearance. Checking the Japanese wikipedia for her name, I see she's done other things. Before nominating something for deletion, its best to Google their name between quotation marks, and look through the first few links. And remember, if they are only famous for things in another country, none of which has officially been released in English yet, you aren't likely to find them listed on IMDB. Dream Focus 20:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I nominated it for a speedy delete, did I? That's funny, because it looks to me like I used a prod - a prod stating she has no IMDb or FMD page, which would take a Google search to determine. What's also funny is that my previous Google search turned up nothing but one credit (as the Anime News Network site you added verifies) - and on some sites, zero - which is why I nominated the article for deletion. But you contest the deletion saying she has multiple credits. Are you willing to state them? Obviously not, which makes me doubt she has anything else. One credit = fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Did you know that? Perhaps it is you who needs to be reminded of Wiki policy. Mbinebri talk ← 19:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- You click on the link to Anime News Network for one, then Google to see the rest. It would've been faster for you to Google for the person, than to nominate it for a speedy delete. Wikipedia policy is to look for it yourself, before nominating it. I added an external link that counts as notable, so that prevents deletion. If you want anything added to the page, do it yourself, or leave it around long enough and someone else will get around to it. Dream Focus 18:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
February 2009
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Mayu Sakai. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Since you "found a source" that means you knew it was copyvio, so giving you the warning for adding it back anyway. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Your reason for deleting it wasn't because it was copyrighted, it was because you said it was unsourced. If its copyrighted, then yes, we should delete it, but not because of the reason stated. Dream Focus 19:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just because I listed one reason doesn't mean it was the only one. If you'd quit blindly reverting me just because its me, maybe you'd have realized it was blatantly obvious that is stolen from another site without having to specifically state so. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly I didn't bother reading it. I just glanced at the first sentence, saw your reason for the chunk deletion was "Sources" and reverted it, since "sources" is not a reason to be deleting stuff. Dream Focus 19:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just because I listed one reason doesn't mean it was the only one. If you'd quit blindly reverting me just because its me, maybe you'd have realized it was blatantly obvious that is stolen from another site without having to specifically state so. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Your reason for deleting it wasn't because it was copyrighted, it was because you said it was unsourced. If its copyrighted, then yes, we should delete it, but not because of the reason stated. Dream Focus 19:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:NPA
"Don't try to reason with them, they don't like using the reasoning part of their brain.". That's a clear personal attack. I would've only deleted that sentence, but it made the rest of the paragraph meaningless, which is why I removed the whole thing. Black Kite 19:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- You have different parts of your brain. Instead of using their reasoning skills to determine if something should remain, some prefer to ignore everything other than the policy rules. That is a fact, not an insult. An example of this would be the case where a woman couldn't move her car, since after a storm a tree had blown down atop of it. Someone then gave her a parking ticket for being there past hours. According to the rules, she shouldn't have been parked there at night, and thus was ticked. Have you honestly never met anyone like that before in your life? I mention above that bit, about how they don't think its notable if its on the bestseller's list, because the rules state you have to be mentioned in a newspaper review. That's the thought of people I am complaining about, they unable to or simply not wishing to use the reasoning parts of their brains. Dream Focus 19:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- (refactor) Not a great analogy, to be honest. Perhaps others would argue that such policies are there for a reason. Is it too much to ask that you alter that particular sentence? Black Kite 19:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I replaced it with something else to get the point across better. I think it came out much better. Next time please discuss before editing someone's user page though. And I welcome and encourage all discussion about the content of it here, on my talk page. Please share your opinion of the content. Dream Focus 19:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Made a minor tweak. Can we leave it at that please? Black Kite 19:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Fine. Less scientific, but less likely to be misinterpreted I suppose. No need for me to put up a schematic of the human brain, and point out exactly what part of them is not developed properly, and how this means they all suck at math and all logic solving problems. Can't "think outside the box", as they say. Dream Focus 20:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Made a minor tweak. Can we leave it at that please? Black Kite 19:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I replaced it with something else to get the point across better. I think it came out much better. Next time please discuss before editing someone's user page though. And I welcome and encourage all discussion about the content of it here, on my talk page. Please share your opinion of the content. Dream Focus 19:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- (refactor) Not a great analogy, to be honest. Perhaps others would argue that such policies are there for a reason. Is it too much to ask that you alter that particular sentence? Black Kite 19:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- You have different parts of your brain. Instead of using their reasoning skills to determine if something should remain, some prefer to ignore everything other than the policy rules. That is a fact, not an insult. An example of this would be the case where a woman couldn't move her car, since after a storm a tree had blown down atop of it. Someone then gave her a parking ticket for being there past hours. According to the rules, she shouldn't have been parked there at night, and thus was ticked. Have you honestly never met anyone like that before in your life? I mention above that bit, about how they don't think its notable if its on the bestseller's list, because the rules state you have to be mentioned in a newspaper review. That's the thought of people I am complaining about, they unable to or simply not wishing to use the reasoning parts of their brains. Dream Focus 19:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Dream, remove the insult, called "refactoring", remove your defense of the insult here, and apologize to Black Kite. >>>It is in your best interest to do this.<<< Give me permission and I will delete all of the insults, so you don't miss one. Then you can apologize profusely. Ikip (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Refactoring? Me and Black Kite worked out the problem with the discussion above, I not wording things properly, there some misunderstanding. Dream Focus 10:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Merge discussion at Talk:Tom Tucker (Family Guy)
I've opened a merge discussion at the above-mentioned location. Please consider participating if you are interested. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!
Merge straw poll
Heads up
RE: Wikipedia_talk:User_page#User:Dream_Focus
A prominent editor who deletes a lot of material from Wikipedia has your own user page in her sights, guess what her one and only solution is? [And if you guessed, leaving well enough alone, you would be wrong]
She will be stopping by to say hello soon, since I accidently posted this on her page first. :( Ikip (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- you seem to have some pretty prominent editors who delete a lot of material from Wikipedia on your talk page, so you must be doing something right. Ikip (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident
An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiScrubber (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I voted to keep. And for the deletion review I voted to restore it. It wasn't just a regular news item, this one had an important and notable event worthy of an article. Dream Focus 00:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:ZELDA OCARINA OF TIME 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ZELDA OCARINA OF TIME 2.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
- That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed. I had it listed for The Legend of Zelda instead of The Legend of Zelda (series). Dream Focus 09:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
link wars
i agree with your point of view on wiki links, seems to me it's just another form of edit wars--Legeres (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of SDF-1 Macross
SDF-1 Macross has been nominated for deletion and you were involved in a previous AfD about a different article involving the same cartoon series. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDF-1 Macross. Thank you.--Sloane (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Dog poop girl
"it was a historical and noteworthy event"? Someone's dog shitting on a subway train was a historical event? Please have a think about that concept. (Now you've had a think about it, have a look at the points on the DRV - whilst there's no problem with the event being mentioned in Internet vigilantism, it's not notable outside that context, with no sources that discuss it outside that context). Thanks, Black Kite 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- It caused a large number of people to go online, and publicly shame someone for their actions. The cultural affect is that no one else would dare do the same thing, fearing the same response. That in itself is notable. And didn't most people say Keep? The consensus of the editors discussing this, not your own personal opinion, is what matters. Don't play God, and do whatever you want, ignoring the opinions of everyone else. That isn't what administrators are suppose to do, otherwise the AFD wouldn't existed at all. Dream Focus 22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- You hit the nail right on the head - the single notable thing about the event is the cultural effect ... which is discussed in Internet vigilantism, which is where the information currently is. And that's exactly what administrators are supposed to do. Black Kite 23:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- It caused a large number of people to go online, and publicly shame someone for their actions. The cultural affect is that no one else would dare do the same thing, fearing the same response. That in itself is notable. And didn't most people say Keep? The consensus of the editors discussing this, not your own personal opinion, is what matters. Don't play God, and do whatever you want, ignoring the opinions of everyone else. That isn't what administrators are suppose to do, otherwise the AFD wouldn't existed at all. Dream Focus 22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey there - the page is still being rewritten - as you have shown such an interest in it, why not jump in and give a hand improving the article? pablohablo. 23:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Because I don't know a thing about quaternions. But I don't like people moving against consensus and trying to delete something the overwhelming majority of people said to keep, thus the reason I was protesting before. Dream Focus 23:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- So what exactly was deleted? pablohablo. 23:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Everything. One editor stated during the article for deletion discussion, after most people said keep, that it didn't matter what the rest voted, he'd delete it anyway. And that's what he did. After much debate, any many people speaking out on this, the article was allowed to stay. history of it starting at March 4th, and you can see at least 6 times when it was deleted, and then reverted, until finally a stub was placed there and people worked on it a bit. If the overwhelmingly majority of editors vote to keep something, believing it has the right to exists as an article, and by consensus the closing editor says keep, then an article should be kept. Dream Focus 23:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh right. But the article has been (is being) rewritten, and bears little resemblance now to the article you're referring to that contained "valid information". So has any of that valid information been lost? pablohablo. 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- It has the exact same information. I just checked the history and compared it. All historical bits are kept, which is quite valid for this article. As for the rest, if some believe that part belongs elsewhere, so be it. Just no sense in deleting an entire article, when the topic is perfectly valid. Dream Focus 23:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well you are certainly right about not knowing anything about quaternions. pablohablo. 23:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to ARS!
![Lifebuoy](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Gnome-help-browser.svg/82px-Gnome-help-browser.svg.png)
Hi, Dream Focus, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles and content that have been nominated for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable, and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles and content to quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
- WikiProject Article rescue squadron's (ARS) main aim is to help improve Wikipedia articles and content. If someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification.
- Sometimes we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Sometimes editors who are new to Wikipedia may perceive the deletion of "their" article as discouraging. Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages.
- The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion.
- Our primary work is improving Wikipedia articles and content. A more dynamic list with article links and descriptions are located at our rescue list.
- If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves.
- Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.
And once again — Welcome! ~~~~
March 2009
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. --neon white talk 22:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Did you have a look at Email, an existing article which covers this information in great detail? I would have voted a "keep" myself, but the subject already has an article... longer, more detailed, and better sourced. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep discussions on that AFD page please. I have it on my watch list, and just responded to two different post. Dream Focus 09:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The text you placed here is largely copied from the article itself and because of that it is in itself a copyright infringement (it includes some of the problematic text). We can't use copyrighted text on any space in Wikipedia, including talk pages and talk/temp pages, unless we have permission or unless it conforms to WP:NFC. I've blanked it as well for now rather than simply deleting it. I see you have not edited this since the 9th. Do you intend to work on this further? The matter has come ripe for closure at WP:CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I thought I had erased all the copyrighted stuff. I searched for the part with the date between quotation marks, and didn't find anything. Doesn't matter. I kept finding contradicting information when I went looking for information, and the sites I found seem to be a bit bias. One says a worker makes enough in a month to rent a shack, and that food cost too much, and then they are cheated out of their wages as often as possible. If that were all true, then they'd have less than 0 income, and would starve to death. Also, their current minimum wage is much higher than it previous was, so it is better than they'd make as farmers. The article has potential I suppose, its just hard to find information on it. They mention a study done by someone from a university, but I searched around and can't find proof that ever existed. Seems a bit odd. Anyway, delete it if you want to. Dream Focus 16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- All right, I'll do so. If at some point somebody creates a clear article under the subject, so much the better. :) Thanks for your efforts to save it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I thought I had erased all the copyrighted stuff. I searched for the part with the date between quotation marks, and didn't find anything. Doesn't matter. I kept finding contradicting information when I went looking for information, and the sites I found seem to be a bit bias. One says a worker makes enough in a month to rent a shack, and that food cost too much, and then they are cheated out of their wages as often as possible. If that were all true, then they'd have less than 0 income, and would starve to death. Also, their current minimum wage is much higher than it previous was, so it is better than they'd make as farmers. The article has potential I suppose, its just hard to find information on it. They mention a study done by someone from a university, but I searched around and can't find proof that ever existed. Seems a bit odd. Anyway, delete it if you want to. Dream Focus 16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you just removed a prod template from Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer. Your rational was WP:GHITS, which is specifically not a valid deletion argument. I have nominated the page for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer and your comments would be appreciated. Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- That many people reading it, makes it notable as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, you won't find any official results until someone can determine what the proper Japanese title is, since it isn't what is listed there. I'm still searching for information about that. Dream Focus 18:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Sloane (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I believe the rule is only if I reverted the same person. I reverted you last time, since you didn't have a reason to be removing the tag, you stating only your belief that the article was going to be deleted anyway, so it didn't matter. That is NOT a valid reason to remove the rescue tag. And you did not talk about it, or form a consensus. Two editors have stated it should be there. Dream Focus 02:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The following actions are exceptions to the three-revert rule, and do not count as reverts under the rule's definition.
* Reverting obvious vandalism ... adding or removing tags
The only reason why anyone would be trying to delete rescue tag, is because they want the article deleted, and don't want anyone on the Rescue squad to come and help save it, as they did similar articles recently. The tag has a legitimate reason to be there, and you do not have the right to remove it. Dream Focus 02:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
3rr
I reported your continued reversions at the Administrators' noticeboard--Sloane (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wow. So I misunderstood the rules then? Others considered it vandalism also, that they kept trying to delete a tag, they had no right to, without legitimate reason. And since when are any rules absolute? Its all up to interpretation. It was a sincere edit, not disruption, that I did. Anyway, I'll be back in 24 hours, to finish my discussion elsewhere. The whole system is seriously flawed, wikilawyering defeating common sense. Dream Focus 23:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- You got shampooed here. Removing a rescue template is remarkably lame, i.e. it's saying "I don't want it rescued, so, who cares if you do." Well, imagine if you tried removing an AfD template on the same premise. Ridiculous. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I see he removed the tag again once I was banned. Glad you were there to revert his obvious vandalism. [3] Dream Focus 02:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- You are blocked, not banned. There is a big difference. Also, ironically, the editor who reported you above is himself edit warring over adding a template at here, so hopefully everyone will be addressed equally and fairly. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I see he removed the tag again once I was banned. Glad you were there to revert his obvious vandalism. [3] Dream Focus 02:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- You got shampooed here. Removing a rescue template is remarkably lame, i.e. it's saying "I don't want it rescued, so, who cares if you do." Well, imagine if you tried removing an AfD template on the same premise. Ridiculous. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wow. So I misunderstood the rules then? Others considered it vandalism also, that they kept trying to delete a tag, they had no right to, without legitimate reason. And since when are any rules absolute? Its all up to interpretation. It was a sincere edit, not disruption, that I did. Anyway, I'll be back in 24 hours, to finish my discussion elsewhere. The whole system is seriously flawed, wikilawyering defeating common sense. Dream Focus 23:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!
I wanted to thank you for your voice of support in the AfD article on The Motley Moose. It is most appreciated; I am glad someone took the time to actually look over the points presented! Cordially, 137.54.5.14 (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Want to delete something without anyone noticing and protesting? Try a merger!
There is no notice anywhere listing all the merger discussions. This includes merges which are 100% deletes! Not talking about the South Park episode bit, since they said they'll actually keep all the information on separate pages (and hopefully after that's done, no one will wait until no one is watching,and then delete 99% of their content because they think the article is too long). I'm talking about cases where a small group of friends, who post on each other's talk page all the time, get together, and vote 3 to 0, no one else around to notice, to "merge" articles for episodes, characters, or whatnot. They then go and erase these articles, putting a redirect in their place, with not one bit of information moved over. Or sometimes they remove 99% of a character page, and have just a token summary left to move over.
What we need is for every article out there to be placed in proper categories listings. And when something is nominated for a speedy delete, secret delete(forget what they are called), merger, or regular delete(through AFD), anyone who signed up for notification will be told. Otherwise, you can have just a very small number of people decide things, taking out the less popular series with ease.
I'd also like a tool that list all articles that were voted for in AFD as keep, that then got deleted anyway, replaced with a redirect. Dream Focus 00:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- You are confusing deletion and a merger. They completely different processes, with a merger the article history is maintained whilst a deletion removes an entire article including it's history. --neon white talk 07:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- merge
- One entry found.
- Function: verb
- to become combined into one: to blend or come together without abrupt change <merging traffic>
synonyms see mix
Nothing is merged though. And shouldn't we go through the AFD process if the article is going to be deleted, with the exception of its history?
- 'delete
- One entry found.
- Function: transitive verb
- Etymology: Latin deletus, past participle of delēre to wipe out, destroy
to eliminate especially by blotting out, cutting out, or erasing <delete a passage in a manuscript> <delete a computer file>
Dream Focus 15:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
According to the rules of "...Merging — regardless of the amount of information kept — should always leave a redirect or, in some cases, a disambiguation page in place..." There is nothing about Deleting completely, just adding to an article that already exists --Legeres (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Good point. Shouldn't let them call it a merge then. That page gives a good clear definition of it, so I'll link to that next time. I argued before on various pages, that a redirect was not a merge, and that if not one bit of information was going to be copied over, then it wasn't a merge. Had another editor insist on calling it a merge though, refusing to listen to reason. Dream Focus 21:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Irish_clover.jpg/75px-Irish_clover.jpg)
On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Top of the morning to you laddy, or whatever it is they are sterotyped as saying over there. Dream Focus 05:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
re your edits to User talk:Sephiroth BCR
I would point out that account holders are given pretty much free range, within the rules, of what they wish to host on the account talkpage. If you feel that there is still some good reason to continue a discussion that has been archived, I suggest that you request the editor that it is returned. Another method would be to continue to post, referencing the archived discussion. It is considered very poor manners to edit other peoples' talkpages, outside of discussion or removal of vandalism, and I think it would be appropriate for you to undo your edit and then continue as suggested above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Erm...I just saw this. :|
- Dream Focus, I agree with LessHeard vanU, and have reverted as such. Sephiroth BCR deliberately archived it last night as a discussion that wasn't going anywhere. I agree with his assessment. Although I said I missed the developments, I did review it for myself (in catch-up) prior to making the comment on his talk page. Should Sephiroth BCR like to recommence those discussions, or have it reappear on this page, he will unarchive them at his discretion. In the meantime, on the condition you don't alter the comments made there, you may duplicate the comments onto your page here if you wish. Alternatively, perhaps even preferrably, the method specified above by LessHeard vanU will work very well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I thought it was a mistake, since it was still ongoing. But he did that on purpose? I'll copy it on over here then. Dream Focus 18:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Extended content |
---|
The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability. |
Comments duplicated from User talk:Sephiroth BCR until 05:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC) I'm asking for you advice cause i see that you seem to have tried some mediation between these two editors. Again it has arrived at a wikiquette alerts with both editors throwing bad faith accusations back and forth. Neither seem that interested in the advice given or accepting that this behaviour is unproductive which is about the limit of what can be done at WQA. Can you suggest anything? take it to ANI, mediation? A topic ban? A ban on interaction? I suggested that they both draw a line under the past and assmue good faith in future but i'm not convinced it will be effective. Thanks in advance. --neon white talk 06:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I know you said you didn't want to hear from either of us, but this is ridiculous. I can not be expected to ignore any anime/manga AfDs just because Dream Focus commented on them first. Nor did I appear "straight" after him. 4-5 HOURS difference on one, 30 minutes on the other, and HE has no history of editing either either. And no mention of the opposite happening at both Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer and its AfD, nor his immediately removing a CSD tag I put on an article[6] nor his popping into a discussion at the South Park episode page[7] only after I did (and continuing his "merge doesn't mean merge" arguments. Despite my questioning Neon white's neutrality at this point, I have tried very hard not to respond to Dream Focus' continuing personal attacks at the AfDs mentioned, in the TWO 3RR reports against Dream Focus at the moment, and here in which he continues perpetuating the false statements that I was the first and only editor to remove a rescue tag from an article, when I was neither the first NOR the last, yet Neon white actually told Dream Focus that he should have reported all THREE editors to AN/I instead of edit warring with us.[8] I don't really see how Neon white can claim to want to resolve the situation while appearing to be throwing even more fuel on the fire.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
"I have never tagged anything with the Rescue squadron tag before. I don't recall ever using any tag previously for anything. She on the other hand has a terrible habit of going around to articles that were voted keep, and erasing them anyway, calling it a Merge. Look through her history, and you can see she has done that quite regularly. You have an editor who refuses to follow closing AFD consensus, and is obsessed with deleting every single article she can get away with. Is there a way to search for how many articles she has added a redirect to, after they were voted Keep? Dream Focus 21:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Question for Dream FocusHave you had the opportunity to review the restrictions that I linked to for Sephiroth BCR? Do you think that this might provide a basis for you and Collectonian to move forward in the editing of the encyclopedia, once the current matter is resolved? Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Please look at the edit history of that article. Remember, read from the bottom, it coming first. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misa_Kobayashi&action=history
Just read through that please. She appeared to believe only administrators could delete those tags, despite the fact it says if anyone disagrees with the speedy delete, they should remove it. Prods and speedy delete are just if no one would possibly object to the deletion of an article. Otherwise, you send it to AFD and discuss it, forming a consensus. And if I delete her CSD tag right away, its because I had added that page to my watchlist after removing the prod placed by someone else. And I removed the speedy delete tag, for the same reason. I would like others to read her comments there in the edit summaries, as well as on the AFD page as well, and comment. Did I do anything wrong? What about her adding the speedy delete tag back after I removed it? Isn't that rather uncalled for? I only mention the event at all, since it was brought up in the discussion above. I thought it just a common mistake, although a strange one, since the tag clearly states that anyone can remove it if they disagree, not just an administrator. Notice that she appears to believe that everyone is out to get her. Do I appear in even 1% of the articles she is involved in? She edits a tremendous number of articles every day it seems. I'm certainly not stalking her, if we both show up in the anime/manga discussion, or something else we both signed up for on our watch list. Her constant behavior to ignore anything that the AFD voted keep, and then erase it when no one is looking, replacing it with a redirect, and calling it a "merge" despite nothing being merged, is a source of conflict. This is how this all got started again, she doing that to an article I had on my watchlist, and then in her edit comment calling me a "stalker" once again for it. I am certainly not stalking her. Dream Focus 01:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
My problems are with her constant accusations, none of which make any sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Collectonian.27s_behavior Every chance she gets, she accuses me of going after her because she nominated one of my articles for deletion, the Gantz Equipment page. You can see on my user page that that only happened, after I criticized her actions elsewhere, and then told her not to erase a message on a talk page, because she didn't like what it said. She then nominated my article for deletion. I had problems with her in the past. Does anyone who has seen the facts, believe her constant accusation that I'm simply out to get her because she deleted one article of mine? She makes false accusations to try to sway others to her side. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiquette_alerts&diff=276813655&oldid=276812516 She accuses me of forum shopping, on a recent history of quatrains page, despite the fact I only posted on the wikiquette, and then was told where to post instead, and then posted a second time at that location. Does anyone consider that forum shopping? And that article was kept, as consensus, after enough attention was brought to the fact that a few were determined to delete it, and put just a redirect in its place. Those who have looked through the issue, please answer my questions.
|
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability. |
Talkback
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
MuZemike 03:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Barbarain II cover art.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Barbarain II cover art.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Notability for Manga
Seeing your interest in establishing notability in manga, I'm inviting you to take a look at and comment on User:NocturneNoir/Sandbox/Notability (manga). Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 21:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I use those arguments in the AFD all the time to try to save manga, sometimes succeeding. Depends on who is around the day to vote. Tried discussing it on the notability book guideline page before, and nothing came of it. Dream Focus 22:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you've got stuff like this on your user page? Would you be happy with someone else writing a section on "How bad editors try to get non-notable articles kept at AfD"? Black Kite 11:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why would that bother me at all? I have the right to state my opinions about the wikipedia, and so I did. If any editor did this, and some in fact clearly do, in my opinion they are a bad editor. Such behavior should not be tolerated. Dream Focus 11:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, you are NOT allowed to characterize others as bad editors - that contravenes WP:NPA and is disruptive (exactly as the opposite would be). Remove it, please. Black Kite 11:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- There. I changed it, so it doesn't call anyone bad. It now is called "What I consider horrible editing practices", so isn't attacking anyone, just stating criticism of certain practices people go through Dream Focus 11:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK. It's not that you're not allowed to give personal opinions here, it's only when those opinions are negative and you present them as facts that it becomes a problem. Black Kite 11:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- What? Anyone can consider the opinions of someone negative, if they disagree with them. And it is a fact that certain editors use such tactics. Dream Focus 12:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, that might've been unclear. What I mean is that it's perfectly OK to say "I consider this a bad editing practice" (opinion), but it's not OK to say "People who do this are bad editors" (opinion presented as fact). See the difference? Black Kite 12:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- What? Anyone can consider the opinions of someone negative, if they disagree with them. And it is a fact that certain editors use such tactics. Dream Focus 12:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK. It's not that you're not allowed to give personal opinions here, it's only when those opinions are negative and you present them as facts that it becomes a problem. Black Kite 11:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- There. I changed it, so it doesn't call anyone bad. It now is called "What I consider horrible editing practices", so isn't attacking anyone, just stating criticism of certain practices people go through Dream Focus 11:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, you are NOT allowed to characterize others as bad editors - that contravenes WP:NPA and is disruptive (exactly as the opposite would be). Remove it, please. Black Kite 11:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why would that bother me at all? I have the right to state my opinions about the wikipedia, and so I did. If any editor did this, and some in fact clearly do, in my opinion they are a bad editor. Such behavior should not be tolerated. Dream Focus 11:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- You can't say people who do bad things are bad people, only criticize their actions as bad. Alright then. State your negative opinion about an action, but not the people who do it. Understood. Dream Focus 12:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's not just a personal attack issue; it's an appalling assumption of bad faith; tweaking the title does nothing about that. Jack Merridew 12:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I criticize the methods used by some to delete an article, against consensus. Are you suggesting someone who does this, isn't doing it on purpose, or didn't know better? If I said that sending the same article to AFD twice from the same editor was wrong, would that be assuming bad faith? I've seen that happen before. Or would it lead to a bad faith assumption that this person is just trying to go against consensus from previous AFD, and keeps trying until they got the result they wanted? If an article was deleted, and then someone who voted Keep tried to recreate it, and the information was exactly the same as before, wouldn't that be wrong? Does whether or not you agree with the actions being criticized, or the person using them, influence what you believe is right or wrong to post criticism of? Dream Focus 12:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's not just a personal attack issue; it's an appalling assumption of bad faith; tweaking the title does nothing about that. Jack Merridew 12:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Deleting 'articles' that don't reasonably meet sound inclusion criteria improves the project. You seem to miss that the Evil Deletionist® Cabal is seeking the improvement of the project. Have you noticed that no one is proposing to delete Asia, The Canterbury Tales, or Jainism? Japanese porn twins, ephemeral dross such as TV shows, and weapons lists for (what?) video games are another matter; much of this sort of stuff amounts to little more than silverfish damaging the project as a whole. Jack Merridew 12:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- The content of the article is not relevant. You don't delete something simply because you don't like it. If you don't believe something should be allowed on wikipedia, then change the policy to say no episode list, no porn, etc. Saying sometimes its alright, and sometimes it isn't, is just wrong. A significant number of page views for wikipedia are sex related though, with popular culture getting more than half. I don't recall where they keep the stats though, but it is interesting to see. And you can't improve the project by deleting articles, simply because of some unreasonable guideline, which discriminates against many types of media which simply don't get reviewed at all. I protest the unfairness. Dream Focus 12:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Deleting content that is not appropriate for inclusion always improves the project; no exceptions. If the goal was to focus on including content that vast numbers of people simply want, we would be all about uploading copyvios off porn sites. This, however, is an encyclopedia, not a porn site or fan site. Wikipedia discriminates against content all the time per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; deal with it. Jack Merridew 08:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- You do NOT improve the project by erasing stuff the vast majority of people want to read. You should not remove all the fancruft/trivia, if the overwhelming majority of people enjoy reading it. And until someone in charge of wikipedia, or a vote of the majority of the people who use wikipedia, says that certain things shouldn't be allowed, then I see no reason to delete it. Any guideline that is enacted by a small number of people, is not to be taken seriously. Wikipedia used to have trivia sections on almost every article, and no need for any notable reference in a third party media source to justify its existence, we using common sense instead. Then a small number of people go and change the rules, and began deleting everything they don't like and get away with removing. All the fancruft once very common in articles, was removed, leaving many to be brief, boring bits of information you could easily find from the back of the box the media came in, without anything anyone would actually want to come here and read. Dream Focus 10:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has always required verifiability from it's conception i believe. Nothing has changed in that respect. An article cannot achieve guideline status without a wide community consensus, it has to go to the village pump. People can't just write things and declare them a guideline and in the same way articles cannot simply be deleted without discussion. The process is not perfect but if you stufy Wikipedia:Deletion policy you'll find it works fine the vast majority of times. --neon white talk 02:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Which only goes to prove that you're missing two main points - firstly, this is an encyclopedia. It isn't a fan wiki, somebody's personal website, a collection of trivia, or more importantly original research. For the material you mention, there are better places for it to be - dedicated wikis for nearly every fictional universe possible, where people can write about such things in excruciating detail. Secondly, you don't get to ignore guidelines or policies because you don't agree with them. If "only a small number of people" actually agreed with them, they would have been changed a long time ago. There are often discussions about such things - see WP:FICT for example. We have had votes involving many people about many guidelines and policies; they are not set in stone. If you want them changed, start a centralised discussion - see WP:CENT. (Starting discussions like this one isn't going to get many views, as was pointed out to you. Black Kite 10:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- You do NOT improve the project by erasing stuff the vast majority of people want to read. You should not remove all the fancruft/trivia, if the overwhelming majority of people enjoy reading it. And until someone in charge of wikipedia, or a vote of the majority of the people who use wikipedia, says that certain things shouldn't be allowed, then I see no reason to delete it. Any guideline that is enacted by a small number of people, is not to be taken seriously. Wikipedia used to have trivia sections on almost every article, and no need for any notable reference in a third party media source to justify its existence, we using common sense instead. Then a small number of people go and change the rules, and began deleting everything they don't like and get away with removing. All the fancruft once very common in articles, was removed, leaving many to be brief, boring bits of information you could easily find from the back of the box the media came in, without anything anyone would actually want to come here and read. Dream Focus 10:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Deleting content that is not appropriate for inclusion always improves the project; no exceptions. If the goal was to focus on including content that vast numbers of people simply want, we would be all about uploading copyvios off porn sites. This, however, is an encyclopedia, not a porn site or fan site. Wikipedia discriminates against content all the time per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; deal with it. Jack Merridew 08:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- The content of the article is not relevant. You don't delete something simply because you don't like it. If you don't believe something should be allowed on wikipedia, then change the policy to say no episode list, no porn, etc. Saying sometimes its alright, and sometimes it isn't, is just wrong. A significant number of page views for wikipedia are sex related though, with popular culture getting more than half. I don't recall where they keep the stats though, but it is interesting to see. And you can't improve the project by deleting articles, simply because of some unreasonable guideline, which discriminates against many types of media which simply don't get reviewed at all. I protest the unfairness. Dream Focus 12:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- It really depends on the article, to be honest. There can be reasons for sending an article to AfD a number of times. For example, there might be a feeling at the first AfD that the article is capable of becoming notable, and it is therefore kept. However, a year later, if it hasn't improved, it might be felt that the first AfD got it wrong. Or accepted notability might change over time - for example, there is much more community will to delete marginally notable BLPs these days, after many problems in the past. The other problem I think here is that you're not quite grasping the concept of "consensus". Wikipedia is not a democracy, and AfDs are not a vote. For example, an AfD with three Keep votes, each of which gives a good policy-based reason to keep, and ten Delete votes which are all "Delete, this isn't notable" might well be closed as Keep and the closing admin would have a good reason for doing so. I've noticed recently that you've stated that articles are saved at AfD "if they've got enough fans" - well, whilst that might be the case sometimes, the number of fans doesn't make a difference if they can't give any other reason that "I like this article" for it to be kept. Works both ways. Black Kite 12:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Some episode articles are kept, even without anything to prove them notable, while others for series with less fans around to protest, are deleted. Simple as that. And what is this about renominating something if you thought the AFD got it wrong? Can you recreate an article a year after it was deleted, because you disagree with the AFD? And to clarify, I mean the exact same article, not something that has been changed at all. Dream Focus 12:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Quite often you will see AFDs closed with a comment like "giving marginal article a chance to improve". If (in say a year's time) the article hasn't improved, another AfD would be perfectly in order. There's no problem with multiple AfDs as long as it isn't done disruptively, because sometimes AfD gets it wrong. Don't forget, there's always WP:DRV as a check when it does. Black Kite 13:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Some episode articles are kept, even without anything to prove them notable, while others for series with less fans around to protest, are deleted. Simple as that. And what is this about renominating something if you thought the AFD got it wrong? Can you recreate an article a year after it was deleted, because you disagree with the AFD? And to clarify, I mean the exact same article, not something that has been changed at all. Dream Focus 12:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Deleting 'articles' that don't reasonably meet sound inclusion criteria improves the project. You seem to miss that the Evil Deletionist® Cabal is seeking the improvement of the project. Have you noticed that no one is proposing to delete Asia, The Canterbury Tales, or Jainism? Japanese porn twins, ephemeral dross such as TV shows, and weapons lists for (what?) video games are another matter; much of this sort of stuff amounts to little more than silverfish damaging the project as a whole. Jack Merridew 12:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have tried to explain several times that merge and delete are complete different processes but it never seems to register. --neon white talk 02:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding wikia
I have been working on transwiking as seen at User_talk:A_Nobody/Deletion_discussions#Articles_to_have_transwikied. If you are aware of any other wikis that I can include, please let me know. I am hoping we have a list wiki somewhere. There is a List Universe, but it isn't a wiki. A Deletionpedia exists as well, but I don't think we can request transwikis to there? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Compressed for easier viewing, the mistake I made quoting something about the T-shirt, and the failure of proper communications to figure out exactly what people were complaining about right away. Note I apologized before the idiotic 12 hour ban(and yes, telling someone at 9pm, that they are banned until 9am the next morning, is very lame, since I'd be sleeping most of that time anyway)
Hi Dream Focus, In the Tshirt AfD you and I agree on the outcome of the article, but I'd suggest you retract/refactor some of your most recent contributions. #1 they don't belong in the AfD as far as I can tell and #2 they certainly aren't Civil. There is certainly race and religious discrimination in the middle east. But putting it all on one side and (effectively) claiming an editor is racist isn't appropriate. If nothing else, it will likely result in a block if you keep it up. Just my 2 cents. To any admin, please don't consider this a civility warning, merely friendly advice. Hobit (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- The debate was whether the t-shirt was an isolated incident or not. My argument was that it was common, and surely reflected the mindset of the soldiers who go off killing civilians. I should clarify my statement though. Going to edit that now. Dream Focus 11:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I notice my wording could've been interpret as directed at that one editor, instead of the Israelis themselves. I have corrected that. Dream Focus 11:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Nice job Dream, that is the achilles heel of most editors, which is their eventual downfall--they never can admit they are wrong, and that they made mistakes. Ikip (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Dream Focus! I left a comment at the AfD asking you to strike out your comments which accuse the entire nation of Israel (where military service is mandatory, therefore everyone is a soldier) of racism, war crimes, and being "screwed up". I find your comments deeply offensive, especially as a soldier (in reserves) who has never killed a Palestinian or made a Palestinian-related t-shirt. Even the most ardent pro-Palestinian editors on Wikipedia are not making the comments you are, and I would also appreciate it if you refrained from making such comments in the future. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 12:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Heyo Dream focus,
- I was just about to make a comment about your recent "the average soldier... murder thousands of innocent civilians"[10] comment but Ynhockey beat me to it. I support his comment here and request that you strike through the comment and avoid making such comments in the future. A quick look at past contributions show a few repetitions (Sample: [11]) so I am also making a notification that the Wikipedia ARBCOM have ruled on I-P issues with the following final decision. Please take the time to review these stated principles as ignoring decorum and the purpose of the project could lead to discretionary sanctions.
- Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 12:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I just posted over there again. I apologize for making such a comment. Obviously not all soldiers are that screwed up, but some racists ones among them surely are. Since I have people from that nation here, please answer a few questions for me.
- After conquering the area, Israel was unable to give everyone the right to vote, since the locals outnumbered them. So it was then decided that those on the West Bank and Gaza Strip were still under control of your nation, but weren't allowed to vote. Is this correct? Over the years, Arabs living in Israel, have been driven out by various means, including force.
- Years ago, I saw video footage of Russians who immigrated to Israel, laughing as they forced a Palestinian man at a checkpoint to strip naked, in front of everyone. This type of humiliation is constant, according to the news report. This is like how in Detroit in America's tragic racist past, the police would stop black Americans, refer to them as "boy" and do everything they could to harass and humiliate them. America also had a policy of Redlining, where the banks found a way to keep blacks from moving into certain areas, and did their best to drive them out. Is something like that going on in Israel now? I saw a news report in years past that Arabs couldn't get an apartment in some Jewish dominated areas. Would an Arab be able to get a bank loan, a government job, or rent an apartment as easily as a Jewish person would?
- Have you seen video footage of an entire building getting shot up by helicopter, just to get one guy before? Do they censor the news any in Israel? Do you believe it is justified to endanger the lives of an entire building full of people, to get just one guy, instead of just sending in ground troops to arrest him? They wouldn't do this if it was a building filled with people they could relate to, therefor surely they must consider them all inferior, or all as potential enemies.
I look forward to your response. Dream Focus 16:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Have another look at WP:ARBPIA#Purpose of Wikipedia - I'm not sure you understand the problem. PhilKnight (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Final warning
Hi Dream Focus, I agree with Ynhockey, Jaakobou, and Pablo's comment on the AFD page - in future, please keep your comments focused, and avoid using Wikipedia as a debating forum, otherwise a block or ban is going to be applied. PhilKnight (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing on the article page was not related to the t-shirt issue. The action represents the mindset of the people there. As for what I put on my personal talk page, it doesn't concern anyone but me. I have questions about the issue, and posted them here, since some from that nation are around to answer them for me. Dream Focus 22:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg.png)
{{unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PhilKnight (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
Dream Focus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The discussion was relevant to the subject. The only comment made which was generalized, I did post an apology for, stating not all the soldiers were screwed up, that wrong of me to say, but obviously racism is a serious problem, as the news article I linked to verified.
Decline reason:
Decline. Comments had nothing to do with the discussion whatsoever. Racist commentary like that has no place in any discussion anywhere on Wikipedia. You easily could have discussed the merits of the article without resorting to insensitive comments like those. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 23:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
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.
- What the hell? The article is about racist and highly offensive t-shirts, and the discussion is whether the article represents a common mindset, or if it was just a rare event. Mentioning a BBC news article showing that 70% of the youth in Israel consider the Arabs to be intellectually inferior to them, which clearly shows that racism is a problem there, and thus the t-shirt incident not an isolate event, is in fact valid to the discussion. How is it insensitive or racist of me to point out what all the major newspapers and studies are saying? Did you read through all of that, or just do a brief glance at it? Dream Focus 00:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, the incident was racist, but that doesn't give you license to shoot off insults of any kind, especially the kind you did. This isn't a forum for soapboxing. No one cares what your views are on the incident and they are totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is whether the article is appropriate for Wikipedia. Your comments were completely uncalled for and extremely offensive to Israelis, as several editors in that discussion noted. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 01:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- If it was a nation other than Israel, would you feel the same way? Do you consider Israel to be your spiritual homeland? Is that why you are so defensive? I've seen far worse from people elsewhere that didn't result in 12 hour blocks. Don't let your personal beliefs and emotions cloud your judgment. Dream Focus 01:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't care what nation it was. I'm not Jewish, Israeli, or have any connection whatsoever to Israel. That you believe that of all things is supposedly clouding my judgment is missing the point entirely. What honestly was your goal to give racist comments in a discussion like that? They have no place whatsoever there. The block is definitely deserved. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- If it was a nation other than Israel, would you feel the same way? Do you consider Israel to be your spiritual homeland? Is that why you are so defensive? I've seen far worse from people elsewhere that didn't result in 12 hour blocks. Don't let your personal beliefs and emotions cloud your judgment. Dream Focus 01:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, the incident was racist, but that doesn't give you license to shoot off insults of any kind, especially the kind you did. This isn't a forum for soapboxing. No one cares what your views are on the incident and they are totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is whether the article is appropriate for Wikipedia. Your comments were completely uncalled for and extremely offensive to Israelis, as several editors in that discussion noted. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 01:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- What the hell? The article is about racist and highly offensive t-shirts, and the discussion is whether the article represents a common mindset, or if it was just a rare event. Mentioning a BBC news article showing that 70% of the youth in Israel consider the Arabs to be intellectually inferior to them, which clearly shows that racism is a problem there, and thus the t-shirt incident not an isolate event, is in fact valid to the discussion. How is it insensitive or racist of me to point out what all the major newspapers and studies are saying? Did you read through all of that, or just do a brief glance at it? Dream Focus 00:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
Dream Focus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please read my reasoning above, and then read everything in the talk page of that article. Was anything I said not relevant to the discussion about the article up for deletion? Do the t-shirts represent a common problem of racism in Israel as the BBC article I linked to and quote says, or did I do something wrong, and worthy of a ban?
Decline reason:
How are comments like "A type of sick humor common in their nation. And the average soldier over there has to be fairly screwed up" anything but irrefutable justification for this block? — Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
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.
- I was repeating what was posted in the comments, which at the time I believed. And after someone posted a response, I corrected myself with a reply that not all the soldiers were screwed up, but racism did surely exist. I should've apologized for the sick humor comment as well, the claim from one poster on the news article I linked to, not valid. Alright though. Thanks for giving me an answer. Wish others had done the same. Dream Focus 04:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- (refactored out) My apologies Dream. <<-- this is how it is done. Ikip (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Enemies? You mean someone who holds a grudge and acts on their personal feelings towards me, instead of doing what is right? Yeah, that is possible. Hopefully most people will rise above it. And I honestly want to know what it is EXACTLY that I did wrong. Dream Focus 01:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree the T-shirts were racist, however you shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a soap box for your views, or as a debating forum. PhilKnight (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- File:Shovel black.jpg. Dream Focus, if you would like an award out of that shovel, let me know. Please take my advice: and blank this section. As a friend told me, choose your defeats carefully. What are you comments about this T-shirt worth to you? What do you risk giving up? You have saved so many articles, and you are good at it. Don't lose sight of this. We need you, wikipedia needs you, new editors desperatly need you. Ikip (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- What he said. Hobit (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Ikip and Hobit. I have seen you make wonderfully sound and strong arguments in many discussions. You are overall an asset to our project. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- What he said. Hobit (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- File:Shovel black.jpg. Dream Focus, if you would like an award out of that shovel, let me know. Please take my advice: and blank this section. As a friend told me, choose your defeats carefully. What are you comments about this T-shirt worth to you? What do you risk giving up? You have saved so many articles, and you are good at it. Don't lose sight of this. We need you, wikipedia needs you, new editors desperatly need you. Ikip (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree the T-shirts were racist, however you shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a soap box for your views, or as a debating forum. PhilKnight (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Enemies? You mean someone who holds a grudge and acts on their personal feelings towards me, instead of doing what is right? Yeah, that is possible. Hopefully most people will rise above it. And I honestly want to know what it is EXACTLY that I did wrong. Dream Focus 01:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I apologized above in WP:CIVIL before the 12 hour ban. I think the issue is over. Quoting something from the comments on a news page, accepting it without thinking, was wrong of me. I admitted that on the talk page. Anyway, I think we can move on now. Dream Focus 21:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Heyo Dream Focus,
I'm figuring the main issue with your response to the requests -- to cut back on generic anti-Israeli commentary -- was that you continued to assert generic bad claims about Israelis. I would add that these assertions were innaccurate estimations and false application of statistical analysis resulting in great offense amoung your peer wiki-editors. In general, there is truth in the estimation that Israeli kids recieve (on average) better education than the average Arab kid. As for anything relating to racism in the middle-east, there certainly are some levels of it in each of the opposing societies but it seemed that you were taking a single event and trying to promote a provocative view point rather than focus on the shirt article. Using figurative "kill thousands" type of rhetorics certainly seemed to take the commentary over the top and resulted in your eventual sanctioning.
As for your queries...
- Certainly, the Arabs who were interested in the removal of Israel from the map could not be handed voting rights. As for driving Arabs out of Israel during it's 60 years, I don't believe this a correct portrayal and certainly, the number of Arabs occupants of Israel has only increased over the years. As for the Jewish residents under Arab regimes, the results of the war were opposite and Jews were persecuted and their property seized as hard as they were in Yemen in 1679 only that this time they had a place to go to and the majority of them survived.
- Sadly, I undergo the humiliation of having my bags checked at least twice each day ever since the evil attacks of 2002. Israel has nothing to apologize for the checkpoints and security measures considering the martyrdom seeking jihad "a.k.a. Mukawama" applied on civilian targets. As for young soldiers acting badly - the IDF does try to make these occurances as minimized as possible but you put a 19 year old for 4 weeks with people playing up the situation for the cameramen and you get "photogenic" shots. The comparison between Black/White race issues, btw, is incredibly naive since African Americans never joined 7 armies in an attempt to kill the US white community. If anything, a comparison with the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama of 1982 fits. Regardless, Israel does provide some affirmative action to help its Arab minority.
- I have seen images of buildings shot down to get "just one guy" but considering the culture of the "mukawama jihad" - it is amazing when terrorists are captured alive. Israel currently holds about 9000 convicted militants, a good number of them terrorists who sent suicide bombers into discoteques and coffee shops. As for the lives of the surrounding people; that is an issue that the "mukawama" holds as their greatest weapon. Calling children via radio to "protect" (read: be an active human shield) a militant by sitting with them (and the weapons) in the same structure. It's amazing that the civilian to militant ratio is not higher than 3 to 1 considering this and this is a badge of honour for Israel on the one hand, but also an instrument in the hands of terrorists on the other. I'm not certain that defending the enemy population should indeed become more important than the active defense of your own people. Show me another point in time or another army that did better and it would be an intersting comparison to make.
I hope I answered your quesries. Please avoid the generic "inferiority/superiority/racism/massacres" allegations in the future. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to restore this edit. Please see this about "Roy's List" then this about the edit. Thanks, 65.246.126.130 (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting. I looked through the Guardian article, and it is interesting to see the list of all the nations the CIA, or whoever, secretly bombed over the years, but does she say anything else? Communism is bad for business, that the reason businesses opposed it, and didn't want it happening in nations they were using for cheap labor or exploiting for farm produce or natural resources. Politicians are almost always put into office by major corporations, and thus would appoint others to do their secret bombing campaigns for them. Where does she state what you are claiming? I didn't read through the entire article, it a bit longer than my attention span unfortunately. Dream Focus 22:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
If you just check off the years she lists as "Bombing:Yes" or "Bombing:No" you see it; check the pattern at the bottom of the talk page. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Chase Meridian merge
Hello, there is a proposal to merge an article you recently discussed here. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
About 3RR...
You do know that you file a complaint if the editor made more than 3 reverts within a 24-hour period, right? Kinda odd that you didn't note Edokter's proximal edits that actually go further than mine, and don't have the enefit of our policies to back them up. I will ask you, politely, to withdraw the 3RR complaint (a complaint that you failed to notify me of, btw). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I posted on your talk page just before filing the complaint. And I didn't notice it wasn't within a 24 hour period. And Edokter was reverting your vandalism, so it wasn't a problem. Dream Focus 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and presume you an extremely new user; otherwise, I would have to file a complaint for accusing me of vandalism. Maybe you should learn a LOT more about the policies you think you are enforcing. As well, you should learn to count reverts before filing at AN/3RR, as its considered disruptive to accuse me of violating the 3RR rule when I've actually only reverted twice. Consider yourself warned. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- You are a very rude person. And I didn't do anything you can file a report on. Dream Focus 22:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and presume you an extremely new user; otherwise, I would have to file a complaint for accusing me of vandalism. Maybe you should learn a LOT more about the policies you think you are enforcing. As well, you should learn to count reverts before filing at AN/3RR, as its considered disruptive to accuse me of violating the 3RR rule when I've actually only reverted twice. Consider yourself warned. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring noticeboard
- Please note: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Result_22. Black Kite 22:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I hadn't noticed the time when reporting it. I'll be glad to have someone watch it though. The same person erasing the same exact information half dozen times or so, seems a bit disruptive. Dream Focus 22:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Re:You didn't fill out all the information for a proper AFD...
You placed this on my talk page:"The CBS Mandate you nominated for deletion, has a red link pointing to the discussion for the AFD. You need to fill in whatever information it tells you to, so that something appears there." I quote the template I put on the CBS Mandate page:"Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on Talk:CBS_Mandate. I did leave my reason for deletion on the article's talkpage." 24.12.89.226 (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are suppose to place it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CBS_Mandate_(2nd_nomination)&action=edit&redlink=1 as well, otherwise you can't have a discussion. That's how its done. Anyway, an editor just took it down, so it doesn't matter now. Dream Focus 20:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Super Cauldron.png
Thanks for uploading File:Super Cauldron.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Corrected. I thought clicking that it was the cover of a game's box was enough, but apparently you have to fill in the standard useless information. Dream Focus 03:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Canvassing
You are canvassing: "Important discussions sometimes happen at remote locations in Wikipedia, so editors might be tempted to publicize this discussion by mass-mailing other Wikipedians. Even if the goal is not to influence the outcome of the debate, indiscriminately sending announcements to uninvolved editors is considered "talk-page spamming" (or e-mail spamming) and therefore disruptive." I strongly recommend that you withdraw all talk page messages. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I checked. It isn't canvassing as long as you tell everyone who posted there. Administrators agreed. Canvassing is only if I contacted those who voted a certain way. Dream Focus 04:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Dream Focus on this one. He notified both editors who argued to keep as well as delete, i.e. he notified those with whom he disagreed and who are likely to argue opposite of him. As such, in this case it is not canvassing. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please see the specific passage that I cited. It has nothing to do with tone and everything to do with attracting attention, especially when the consensus was not going to be in his favor. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- The chart says it qualifies as a friendly notice, and is thus allowed. There was clearly Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open Transparency. Not a problem at all. I was going to do this earlier, but was trying to find the right tool, and got distracted, then just went ahead and did it by hand. Dream Focus 04:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have to disagree that there was limited posting... I've seen a few dozen proposed mergers, and they don't even get a half dozen opinions involved. The involvement with this one is pretty hefty, IMO. :P —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Limited as to the number of people contacted, was limited to that list. It wasn't just randomly posting all over the place, trying to get noticed everywhere. Dream Focus 04:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Erik on this; you were canvassing, and the admin in question did not in fact agree with your behavior, and Protonk told you as much. Even after that, you go ahead and continue to canvass? Wait, don't do anything for a little bit; I want to pop some popcorn and get a seat with a good view of the coming dramahz. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- "and you appear to not be interested in canvassing per se, I don't see the merit in continuing this discussion. Protonk (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)" Did you read that part? We worked it out. As long as everyone is contacted, it is not canvassing. Dream Focus 10:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Erik on this; you were canvassing, and the admin in question did not in fact agree with your behavior, and Protonk told you as much. Even after that, you go ahead and continue to canvass? Wait, don't do anything for a little bit; I want to pop some popcorn and get a seat with a good view of the coming dramahz. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Limited as to the number of people contacted, was limited to that list. It wasn't just randomly posting all over the place, trying to get noticed everywhere. Dream Focus 04:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have to disagree that there was limited posting... I've seen a few dozen proposed mergers, and they don't even get a half dozen opinions involved. The involvement with this one is pretty hefty, IMO. :P —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- The chart says it qualifies as a friendly notice, and is thus allowed. There was clearly Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open Transparency. Not a problem at all. I was going to do this earlier, but was trying to find the right tool, and got distracted, then just went ahead and did it by hand. Dream Focus 04:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please see the specific passage that I cited. It has nothing to do with tone and everything to do with attracting attention, especially when the consensus was not going to be in his favor. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Dream Focus on this one. He notified both editors who argued to keep as well as delete, i.e. he notified those with whom he disagreed and who are likely to argue opposite of him. As such, in this case it is not canvassing. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I checked. It isn't canvassing as long as you tell everyone who posted there. Administrators agreed. Canvassing is only if I contacted those who voted a certain way. Dream Focus 04:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Erik, Arcayne stop please stop. I don't see any outrage when editors who support deletion and merging such as User:New_Age_Retro_Hippie who did the exact same thing that Dream Focus does,Talk:Tom_Tucker_(Family_Guy)#So_we_need_a_merge_discussion, in which Protonk got an message to: User_talk:Protonk#Merge_discussion_at_Talk:Tom_Tucker_.28Family_Guy.29. There is no canvas violation here so please leave Dream focus alone. Why not address this on Protunk's page, instead of making the drama spill over to his talk page?
Thank you. Maybe you need an advocate Dream, someone who officially can help you avoid this harrassment, who can counsel you on and off wiki? Ikip (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Uh, thank you, but its alright. Maybe he just read the first part, and didn't bother reading farther down to the part we worked it out. It happens. Dream Focus 15:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Moved from: User Talk:Ikip:
- You'll have to excuse me for not being aware of the extensive discussion on Protonk's talk page; I have not encountered Dream Focus before the popular culture AfD. Regardless of others' opinions, I still disagree with his action to contact those involved with that AfD, not because their opinions don't matter, but because the merge discussion already had a healthy number of editors weighing in to shape consensus. The talk page spamming, like I quoted from the guideline, seemed disruptive. Anyway, what's done is done, and I don't plan to pursue the matter anymore, so I take offense to your accusation of harassing him, especially considering that I have not met him before. I plan to move on and see how the film's cultural impact can best be presented. Thanks. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize Erik, I refactored my comments. Thank you for letting me know your concerns. I sincerely hope these modifications address some of the concerns you have. Best wishes in your editing.Ikip (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Moved from: User Talk:Ikip:
- Uh, thank you, but its alright. Maybe he just read the first part, and didn't bother reading farther down to the part we worked it out. It happens. Dream Focus 15:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment on an AfD?
"Does anyone else actually believe that this book got to the bestsellers list not because of customers buying it, but by trickery from the publishing company?"
Was that really approprite for wikipedia? Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Of course it was. It is a perfectly legitimate question. I've never heard anyone else suggest such a thing, and it seems absolutely ridiculous to think anyone does that, other than certain religious cults. If a publishing company was going to do that, wouldn't they do it with all their books then? This book was the end of a rather long running series. A series that wouldn't have had hundreds of books published in it, unless the sales were significant. His unproven conspiracy theory seems absolutely ridiculous to me, so I was wondering if anyone else believed it or not. Dream Focus 05:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- You'd be suprised what stunts PR/marketing companies get up to. But in the end it's none of our concern. --neon white talk 13:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Of course it was. It is a perfectly legitimate question. I've never heard anyone else suggest such a thing, and it seems absolutely ridiculous to think anyone does that, other than certain religious cults. If a publishing company was going to do that, wouldn't they do it with all their books then? This book was the end of a rather long running series. A series that wouldn't have had hundreds of books published in it, unless the sales were significant. His unproven conspiracy theory seems absolutely ridiculous to me, so I was wondering if anyone else believed it or not. Dream Focus 05:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, going back and re-reading the section, I now see that I overlooked Collectonian's statement. I appoligise for any inconvienience, please accept my appoligies. Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping out with Dragons of Summer Flame; we have a number of similar articles which can use some work so that no one need ever feel the need to nominate them for deletion. :)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs)
- Glad to help. Is there a place where all articles of this type are watched over, people able to easily find things that need their attention? Dream Focus 18:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Where do people find out about an editor running for administrator?
moved from ikip talk page.
Where do people find out about an editor running for administrator? There doesn't seem to be any general announcement anywhere, so is it all by word of mouth, or is it posted someplace? Dream Focus 17:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- LOL, look to the right of where you posted (on ikip talk page), copy and paste: {{Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/RfA_Report}} on your user page for updated list, this is the template that the page Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard uses. The actual full argument pages for each active canidate have been transcribed on this page: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Current_nominations_for_adminship. It is important to keep updated on these potential admins. Ikip (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Doh! So that's what that thing was. Alright, I'll add that to my watch list. Dream Focus 18:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Better yet you can copy and paste: {{Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/RfA_Report}} on your user page. :) Ikip (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Doh! So that's what that thing was. Alright, I'll add that to my watch list. Dream Focus 18:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
How does everyone fill about this question being asked of all those running for administrators?
- If the overwhelming majority of people said to keep an article, but you felt it didn't meet all the guidelines, would you delete it anyway? Is the opinion of a closing administrator all that counts, or are the opinions of everyone equally valid, and thus you willing to let them decide the fate of an article through consensus? Is there any possible reason to have a discussion at all, if administrators decide outright what should be deleted, never considering keeping it, regardless of the will of others? Policies must be followed always, according to the wikipedia rules, but the guidelines are just suggestions, and can be ignored according to wikipedia law. If the consensus of the people in the AFD, say to ignore the guidelines, and Keep an article, would you accept this? Or do you believe that all guidelines should be considered absolute law? Dream Focus 02:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if I was at RfA, my reply would be "that's seven questions, three of which are the same question, and far too confusing - please rewrite it". However, I'll have a look at your questions anyway.
- One thing I will say that you are bringing up again in the above question three times, and also in a comment you made recently at an RfA, is that you still don't seem to grasp that AfD is not a vote. Still, here we go...
- " If the overwhelming majority of people said to keep an article, but you felt it didn't meet all the guidelines, would you delete it anyway?". I can only think of two circumstances - (a) in an RfA which contained a majority of Keep votes which provided no policy-based reason, and a minority of Delete votes which gave good reasoning, and even then I might go "no consensus" unless the issue was particularly obvious. (b) Where an AfD has been disrupted by sockpuppetry and other vote-rigging.
- " Is the opinion of a closing administrator all that counts?" Clearly not, or we wouldn't bother having a discussion. The function of the closing admin is to interpret that discussion in the light of consensus and strength of argument.
- " or are the opinions of everyone equally valid?" No, they're not. The opinions of someone who types "Keep it's notable" or "Delete not notable" are clearly a lot less valid that someone who provides a well-argued policy-based argument, and any admin should give such comments a lot less weight, or none at all. Again - AfD is not a vote.
- " (are) you willing to let them decide the fate of an article through consensus?". See above. Consensus is only part of it. AfD is not a vote.
- "Is there any possible reason to have a discussion at all, if administrators decide outright what should be deleted, never considering keeping it, regardless of the will of others?" I think I've answered that in the three above answers (it's actually the same question - if you're thinking of posting it at RfA, I'd remove this part)
- "If the consensus of the people in the AFD, say to ignore the guidelines, and Keep an article, would you accept this?" That's the same question again - consensus is only part of it, strength of argument must be considered, AfD is not a vote. Again, I'd remove this part as you're just repeating yourself.
- "Or do you believe that all guidelines should be considered absolute law?". Policies are, apart from in very exceptional circumstances, treated as law on Wikipedia. Guidelines are just that - guidelines, but you'd still have to have a very good reason for not following them. For example, commenting "Keep - isn't notable according to the guidelines, but it's an interesting article" at an AfD is likely to be roundly discounted. Black Kite 09:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- What about this [12]? No third party media coverage whatsoever, but it is a bestselling novel. Some say no references so you have to delete it, others say its a bestseller so keep it. How about, the notability guidelines are stupid, bias, and unfair, and should be ignored? Why does the opinion of a couple of reviewers in a newspaper or magazine count, and not the opinion of a large number of fans? What about types of media which don't get reviewed, ever? Every major movie that is produced by Hollywood gets reviewed, good or bad, while most novels, manga/comics, do not get reviewed anywhere these days. Can that be a good reason to ignore the requirement to have third party media coverage to establish notability, instead of what the majority of people in the AFD consider clear evidence of a large fan base? Dream Focus 14:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can see Collectonian's point there (let's face it, you would expect more coverage of a supposedly best-selling novel) but I think this is an exception. I would certainly close that AfD as Keep at the moment, though with so little coverage it may actually be better - in Wikipedia terms - to cover it as part of a much better article about the series, with a section on this book. The reasoning would be "what is the better Wikipedia article - one about the series with lots of sources, citations and a good explanation of the plot of the series as a whole, or lots of stubs about individual books which are little more than plot summaries"? If I'm reading an article, I'd rather see all the info in one place rather than having to jump around between articles. So I can see both sides here. Black Kite 17:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Where else is the information at? If you just like one line on a page mentioning something, that's already there. If you want something to read, you need an article for it. And it'll expand in time. That's what stub articles do... sometimes. We don't need no stinking references. Dream Focus 18:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- No. WP:V (which is a policy) demands references. That isn't a problem for the example we've discussed above, but it may well be for other articles. Black Kite 00:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Where else is the information at? If you just like one line on a page mentioning something, that's already there. If you want something to read, you need an article for it. And it'll expand in time. That's what stub articles do... sometimes. We don't need no stinking references. Dream Focus 18:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can see Collectonian's point there (let's face it, you would expect more coverage of a supposedly best-selling novel) but I think this is an exception. I would certainly close that AfD as Keep at the moment, though with so little coverage it may actually be better - in Wikipedia terms - to cover it as part of a much better article about the series, with a section on this book. The reasoning would be "what is the better Wikipedia article - one about the series with lots of sources, citations and a good explanation of the plot of the series as a whole, or lots of stubs about individual books which are little more than plot summaries"? If I'm reading an article, I'd rather see all the info in one place rather than having to jump around between articles. So I can see both sides here. Black Kite 17:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- What about this [12]? No third party media coverage whatsoever, but it is a bestselling novel. Some say no references so you have to delete it, others say its a bestseller so keep it. How about, the notability guidelines are stupid, bias, and unfair, and should be ignored? Why does the opinion of a couple of reviewers in a newspaper or magazine count, and not the opinion of a large number of fans? What about types of media which don't get reviewed, ever? Every major movie that is produced by Hollywood gets reviewed, good or bad, while most novels, manga/comics, do not get reviewed anywhere these days. Can that be a good reason to ignore the requirement to have third party media coverage to establish notability, instead of what the majority of people in the AFD consider clear evidence of a large fan base? Dream Focus 14:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is. Yep. That includes websites. That verifies it exists, and that's all that matters to satisfy the policy. If its a webcomic, then you can verify it exist by linking to its website. To prove its notable, is up to consensus, people deciding whether its notable for being on a bestsellers list, or having 100,000 hits on Google when searching for blogs, websites, and forums where people talked about it, or having been mentioned in some obscure magazine, or reviewed on a website that gets far more hits on any given day than that magazine has subscribers. One you prove something exist, no matter what it is, verification policy is requirements are met, and people can then decide if its notable using their own common sense, ignoring the notability guidelines entirely. Dream Focus 00:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to have a problem with notability. Proving something exists is utterly irrelevant - that's not what WP:V is for. If everything that could be proved to exist was worthy of a Wikipedia article, we'd have ground to a halt years ago. And you still seem to have this weird conception that some random consensus is what we base notability on. We don't. We base it on notability. Black Kite 01:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Happy Easter!
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Hase_mit_Ostereiern_%282%29.jpg/180px-Hase_mit_Ostereiern_%282%29.jpg)
On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Cool. I use to raise rabbits. When Christianity was spreading in the old Roman empire, they said hey, you can keep your holidays, but now we dedicate them for a new purpose. So, the fertility festival, celebrated by rabbits and eggs, the symbols of fertility, was rededicated to the resurrection of Jesus. Romans also have in their history a now extinct and thus unprovable species of rabbit that actually laid eggs. I find that more believable than the beaver duck crossbreed that has fur, but lays eggs, that the Australians still claim exist to this day. Dream Focus 02:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Google search
Hi, Dream Focus. Just noticed your Village Pump proposal, and I think your Google search may not be doing quite what you want. I tried it and it didn't pull up the "fancruft"-tagged Wiki articles. Shouldn't it be more like THIS? This seems to pull up the articles your search wants to find. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
ANI Notice
Hello, Dream Focus. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talk • contribs) 05:05, 14 April 2009
- You forgot to sign your name, TheFarix. I see some familiar names have posted there already. No surprise there. Dream Focus 10:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Kitten-stare.jpg/120px-Kitten-stare.jpg)
TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
See Trinity
Essentially all traditional christian religious groups, not just Catholics, believe that Jesus is God, though they express it in a rather complicated way--see the above article. The Unitarians don't , and this is their distinctive belief among Protestant groups. Just fyi, re God in Fiction. DGG (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, actually, I was raised a Methodist, and that's not how it works. Jesus is the son of God, but he is not God. You pray to God, not Jesus, they taught as two separate entities. Dream Focus 09:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- it's time you re=read the first chapter of John. DGG (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Support
Would you support me here, please? Debresser (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just posted there. Didn't notice that Honorverse article had also been nominated as well. I see someone has told you that might count as canvassing, which means bringing attention to an article someone might want to save, instead of letting it get deleted without anyone noticing. Dream Focus 14:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The mighty <div> tag
Hi - I was going to explain what I was doing on your talk page, but I had to go and do something else. Still, you seem to have figured it out! pablohablo. 20:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I saw what you did, and just copied it, then added how to on the wikipedia page about that sort of thing. Thanks for your help. Dream Focus 00:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
RfA Thankspam
Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark 22:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa |
![]() |
April 2009
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Calling someone a fool, even on your talk page, is a violation of the WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL policies. --EEMIV (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh get over yourself. I did not call an actual person a fool, saying only that whoever went and nominated it for 7th time would be a fool, do to their actions. Its only against the rules if I insult an actual person, not someone who doesn't exist yet. Dream Focus 16:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like I misread it as "the same fool". I suppose the warning for WP:NPA in this instance isn't apt, although your ongoing antagonism and insults -- even if vaguely thrown -- certainly run counter to WP:CIVIL. --EEMIV (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Threatening to have someone blocked is antagonistic and insulting. Next time read things carefully, before tossing out a threat like that. It isn't something you should do so lightly. On another note, would you believe it is antagonistic and insulting to constantly go around trying to delete articles that are less than one day old, or have already been voted Keep several times already, ignoring consensus and trying to delete something people said Keep(this is called a merge, even if nothing is merged, you just have to put a redirect there), accusing someone of nonsense constantly, mentioning the same idiotic examples of something even though its already been discussed and worked through(the canvasing nonsense), etc.? Have you read through everything on the most recent trial of character? I would like some comments on specific examples, and whether you believe they should bring up these same exact things, every chance they get. Also, was it wrong for me to ask my question here? Two editors who are accusing me seem to be very against me being able to do this. Dream Focus 18:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like I misread it as "the same fool". I suppose the warning for WP:NPA in this instance isn't apt, although your ongoing antagonism and insults -- even if vaguely thrown -- certainly run counter to WP:CIVIL. --EEMIV (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
testing out this subpage thing
User:Dream_Focus/Draft of article User:Dream_Focus/About me
- It works. Interesting. When someone goes to create an article, they should link them to the policy rules, and tell them also how to do this, to gather everything they need to defend it against people with nothing better to do than to casually destroy other people's work. Dream Focus 04:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- They already do - when a user tries to create a page, they are linked to Wikipedia:Your first article, like this. Black Kite 12:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Consider creating the article first in your user space As a registered user, you have your own user space. You can start your new article there, on a subpage; you can get it in shape, take your time, ask other editors to help work on it, and only move it into the "live" Wikipedia once it is ready to go. To create your own subpage, see here. When your new article is ready for "prime time", you can move it into the main area.
- No link to tell people how straight away. Need to say User:Your_name_here/draft of article straight away. No one is going to bother clicking around to different pages, and reading things through, before starting an article, as evident by the fact that they currently don't. Need to tell them directly. Dream Focus 14:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I see your point. Let me have a look at that ... Black Kite 15:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Collapsing talkpage sections
I knew I had seen an easier way to do this somewhere.
Collapsing talkpage sections |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
What you doplace a {{hat|type your title in here}} template at the top of the section and a {{hab}} at the bottom. Less effort than what you have been doing perhaps. pablohablo. 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC) |
- Oh cool! Same results though, just gives the message not to edit it. Dream Focus 16:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- yes - pretty much the same but it aligns left by default, which is what you wanted. pablohablo. 19:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Question about the current rules about fictional characters
Apparently a decision was made by a small number of people, which could affect a vast number of articles. Previously articles were saved if the fictional character was found in more than one source. But, as brought up in Malus_Darkblade recently, it seems it now says that the countless thousands of articles for any fictional character, should be deleted. Anyone feel like discussing that with me? How many people decided this? Should such a small number of people decide something so great? They didn't like the character articles, so changed it, so they now had an excuse to delete them outright. Of course I've been seeing character articles sent to AFD for months now, sometimes they being saved, and sometimes not. Dream Focus 09:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Question about the current rules about fictional characters
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANotability_(fiction)&diff=282794101&oldid=282782136 Apparently a decision was made by a small number of people, on April 9th, which could affect a vast number of articles. Previously articles were saved if the fictional character was found in more than one source. But, as brought up in Malus_Darkblade recently, it seems it now says that the countless thousands of articles for any fictional character, should be deleted. Anyone feel like discussing that with me? Notice how few people decided this, against the protests of others? Should such a small number of people decide something so great? They didn't like the character articles, so changed it, so they now had an excuse to delete them outright. Of course I've been seeing character articles sent to AFD for months now, sometimes they being saved, and sometimes not.
The most important part that has been deleted is:
- Importance of the fictional work: To justify articles on individual elements, the fictional work from which they come must have produced significant artistic impact, cultural impact, or general popularity. This is shown when the work (not the element) exceeds the relevant notability guidelines.
- Role within the fictional work: The element must be an important element, and its importance must be verifiable. The importance of characters and episodes can be demonstrated through the use of primary or secondary sources, while the importance of other elements must be validated in independent secondary sources.
Dream Focus 09:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Spam
Please don't WP:SPAM your straw polls to unrelated but supposedly sympathetic to yourviewpoint projects, as you did here[13]. Fram (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Your comments about not ever seeing that part there before, are rather surprising. It isn't spam, since I'm not advertising something, such as adding something new, but instead restoring something that affects all of us. And I hope everyone goes to [14] and participates on this epic change for wikipedia, since thousands of character articles will be destroyed if we don't add that back in. Dream Focus 10:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have now read, thanks to other people, that this was the revised version of the three-prong test. I had only commented on the original one, which had quite different wording. Niether of them even got any consensus, so reintroducing text which never was in an accepted guideline anyway is no use. And if it affects all of us, you should post it at the village pump, not at a specific group of mostly inclusionist editors. That is spamming, pure and simple. Fram (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I responded to this elsewhere. I made a mistake, it not a guideline, there not being one for fiction, it just a suggested guideline. Had it been a major change in a guideline which would result in the deletion of thousands of articles, then an organization based on rescuing articles should be told. Anyway, it appears that its all down to consensus whenever someone tries to delete a character page now, they able to wipe out all of them, depending on who is around at the time to defend them, and who the closing editor is. Dream Focus 12:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Non, they should still not have been told. They are there to make sure that no articles are deleted which could, with improvement, be made according to the policies and guidelines. They are not there to make the guidelines so that no articles get deleted. This is a completely different approach and not the purpose of the ARS at all. And most character pages would not get deleted now (or anytime in the recent past), they would be kept for notable characters, or merged for others, just like it always was in the past few years. Fram (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Some do not consider any characters notable unless they receive mention in a third party media source. They vote delete every time, without a moment's consideration. There have been character pages deleted with only two of the three people that showed up, saying delete. Some try to "merge" all character pages into one lump, as a "compromise". There is no notability guideline that allows you to keep them, just because some believe them notable. It all comes down to whoever is around at the time, to participate in the AFD. Dream Focus 16:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Non, they should still not have been told. They are there to make sure that no articles are deleted which could, with improvement, be made according to the policies and guidelines. They are not there to make the guidelines so that no articles get deleted. This is a completely different approach and not the purpose of the ARS at all. And most character pages would not get deleted now (or anytime in the recent past), they would be kept for notable characters, or merged for others, just like it always was in the past few years. Fram (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I responded to this elsewhere. I made a mistake, it not a guideline, there not being one for fiction, it just a suggested guideline. Had it been a major change in a guideline which would result in the deletion of thousands of articles, then an organization based on rescuing articles should be told. Anyway, it appears that its all down to consensus whenever someone tries to delete a character page now, they able to wipe out all of them, depending on who is around at the time to defend them, and who the closing editor is. Dream Focus 12:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have now read, thanks to other people, that this was the revised version of the three-prong test. I had only commented on the original one, which had quite different wording. Niether of them even got any consensus, so reintroducing text which never was in an accepted guideline anyway is no use. And if it affects all of us, you should post it at the village pump, not at a specific group of mostly inclusionist editors. That is spamming, pure and simple. Fram (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
edit war from two reverts?
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Clone Republic. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --EEMIV (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted you twice, and asked that you wait until we could get a third opinion on our disagreement, before you go and delete that again. Stop harassing/bullying me with idiotic warning tags. And did you read the text you keep deleting? How can you understand the series, without knowing those key aspects? Dream Focus 10:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
The Defender of the Wiki may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes.
Dream Focus, thank you again for your valiant efforts, and being the first person to defend me on ANI. Your efforts are tireless and brave, and I appreciate all of your hard work and dedication. Once you refine the way you interact with editors, you can be an admin someday. You are a true asset to wikipedia, thank you, thank you, thank you. Ikip (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC) |
Boldly clarified your proposal
I boldly clarified your proposal. I hope you don't mind. Ikip (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine. The tool I used before, but can't remember, listed things in order of contributions, whoever did the most text added was first. Didn't subtract things removed though, since that isn't relevant. I can't find it in my bookmarks, and don't remember which one it was. If you want to post this somewhere else as well, go for it. The only thing of importance, is that we get it done. Dream Focus 18:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I added a link to the page you are talking about. Ikip (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- That link is for who did the most edits. I was thinking of the one that counts how much text each editor added. I used it before, but can't seem to find it. Dream Focus 19:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I will email you my plethoria of tools, it is probably in there somewhere. Ikip (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am now using you as a cautionary tale of what not to do when arguing with editors, when I warn other editors. email now...Ikip (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- That link is for who did the most edits. I was thinking of the one that counts how much text each editor added. I used it before, but can't seem to find it. Dream Focus 19:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I added a link to the page you are talking about. Ikip (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Got distracted by other things. I see consensus seems to favor my proposal. Poll Now where do we post this at? I think someone posted a link somewhere, but I can't seem to find it. Way too many pages to keep track of. I think the points I made will be enough to convince most to accept this. Dream Focus 23:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Fancruft template
Hi - I have substituted the fancruft template. This because the template not only displays on your page, it also is designed to sort articles into Category:Articles with trivia sections. It isn't designed to work on user pages. pablohablo. 13:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Alright. As long as people can still see it. Seeing how you did that, I decided to play around, and make my own variation tags. That would be funny to see them used instead. Maybe on the wikia at least. Dream Focus 14:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- You can see what code any template produces by substing it: instead of
{{fancruft}}
I typed{{subst:fancruft}}
so that when the page is read, the contents of the template are loaded into the page - it's the same principle as typing four tildes and getting your signature. pablohablo. 14:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have time, I'd appreciate your looking in at Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources and either advise or contribute. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Looks great. I only clicked a few links, but those seem notable. They aren't trying to sell anything they review, and have a nice easy to read layout. Rotten Tomatoes is already used as a legitimate source for other things, as is Ain't It Cool News. As long as each website has a fair number of original reviews for things, with valid information, then there is no reason why any reasonable person would object. Dream Focus 21:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Policy links to fight off future harassment
Notifying interested people
Wikipedia:AFDHOWTO#Notifying_interested_people:
- Notifying substantial contributors to the article
While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion.
Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may use these neutrally worded notification templates:
- For creators who are totally new users:
{{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} ~~~~
- For creators:
{{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} ~~~~
- For contributors or established users:
{{subst:Adw|Article title}} ~~~~
- For an article you did not nominate:
{{subst:AFDNote|Article title}} ~~~~
Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#AfD Wikietiquette:
...But if you are proposing deletion of an article, you can send a friendly notice to those who contributed significantly to it and therefore might disagree with you.
Place a notification on significant pages that link to nomination
Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination states:
- "Place a notification on significant pages that link to your nomination, to enable those with related knowledge to participate in the debate."
Ikip (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Invitation
I am just starting this page: User:Ikip/p, a straw poll for all ARS members to comment in.
I welcome you to comment and contribute. Ikip (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I would post it there, but I'm afraid that it would make the debate excessively long, so I'll do it here instead.
I would do pages for Leona Lewis' version of Run and Alexandra Burke's version of Hallelujah. However, we had this debate in January 2009 - which leads me to think that the deletionistas who inhabit WP would call for it to be deleted.
Other cover versions that made No1 in the United Kingdom that don't have their own pages include a1's version Take on Me, two people from Pop Idol in 2003 covering With a Little Help from My Friends (incidentally, that's missing from the article) and Westlife doing You Raise Me Up (although the latter article could do with some revamping - two versions of it made the British top 10 in 2005/6). I fear the same sort of scenario would happen in all of these situations. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
(Also - since I like to keep everything together, put your response here. I have this on my watchlist.)
- That is insane! If it sold that many copies, it clearly qualifies for its own article. The fact that someone else song it before hand, isn't relevant. Some people just want the fewest wikipedia articles possible, or just seem to enjoy deleting things. Total madness. Consensus is based on whoever is around at the time to comment, as well as who the closing editor is(some would've ruled no consensus and left it be). The same articles get nominated for deletion multiple times, even after consensus was keep, while other articles that are deleted, get recreated and are kept. Easier to destroy, than it is to create, unfortunately. Dream Focus 18:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. Yes, the Leona Lewis version of "Run" is clearly notable, and would qualify for its own article. No-one's arguing that. The issue is - is it better and easier for our readers in its own article, or would it be better as a section of the Snow Patrol article? After all, it's the same song. This is a style issue, not a deletion one. Black Kite 18:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- So even if it meets the requirements, clearly notable you say, people can delete it anyway because they personally don't like it? I thought not liking something, wasn't a valid excuse for deletion. Dream Focus 18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- No. The person above has got the wrong idea based on the deletion discussion that he mentioned (which had JamesBurns socks in it, if you notice). If he created separate pages for the "Run" single or the "Hallelujah" one, they would clearly be notable (they were both No.1 singles in the UK) and if they went to AfD they'd probably be kept. (Especially the "Run" one - after all it was more succesful in the charts than the original!) But sometimes they get merged - sometimes cover versions are better in a separate article, and sometimes they're better in one article, it's a matter of style. Remember the articles are about the song as a whole, not the individual versions. Therefore, for a song with a lot of cover versions, it'd be madness to have an indidivual article for each one. There's no question of deleting anything, just where the information is going to be. Black Kite 10:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- So even if it meets the requirements, clearly notable you say, people can delete it anyway because they personally don't like it? I thought not liking something, wasn't a valid excuse for deletion. Dream Focus 18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. Yes, the Leona Lewis version of "Run" is clearly notable, and would qualify for its own article. No-one's arguing that. The issue is - is it better and easier for our readers in its own article, or would it be better as a section of the Snow Patrol article? After all, it's the same song. This is a style issue, not a deletion one. Black Kite 18:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- That is insane! If it sold that many copies, it clearly qualifies for its own article. The fact that someone else song it before hand, isn't relevant. Some people just want the fewest wikipedia articles possible, or just seem to enjoy deleting things. Total madness. Consensus is based on whoever is around at the time to comment, as well as who the closing editor is(some would've ruled no consensus and left it be). The same articles get nominated for deletion multiple times, even after consensus was keep, while other articles that are deleted, get recreated and are kept. Easier to destroy, than it is to create, unfortunately. Dream Focus 18:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw this AfD, which caught my interest, then got side-tracked into mini-bios of Irish participants in the Colombian wars of independence: James Towers English, James Rooke, William Aylmer and Francisco Burdett O'Connor, then further side-tracked to Mariano Montilla and Pedro Antonio Olañeta. John Devereux (con artist) and Francisco Tomás Morales are obvious gaping holes, and I suppose others will appear. But to go back to the AfD, now in day 6, any comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- That is insane so many of these things got nominated at once. Especially when most of the ones I've seen, end up being kept. You might want to consider joining the Rescue Squadron. Its a group dedicated to finding information for articles, and improving them so they are kept. When you see something that could be improved upon, you add in the Rescue tag, and then others can look through the list of articles currently tagged, and go there to try to help with it. Dream Focus 00:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI
Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
ADHD
A couple of issues:
- I nominated the ADHD pages for the Medical Collaboration of the Week to bring more eyes to theses issues in Sept of 2008. Scuro recently has been trying to keep this from happening. [15]
- When independent editors attempt to help resolve things Scuro has claimed they were not focusing on the issue [16]
- But the big thing is just the volume of text. Anyway have to go. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
[17] I don't see anything wrong in the links you provided. Keep this on the official discussion for it. And you aren't suppose to complain about someone like that, instead of the issue itself. Focusing on the issue, not the user, is one of the wikipedia policies. Dream Focus 21:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Understandable. I try to exclusively deal with references on Wikipedia.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
MASH
- Don't forget to express your opinion one way or the other at all the List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1). Every episode has been nominated individually and there is only a few days left for the comments period to remain open. Even the pilot is up for deletion, and it was nominated for multiple awards. Your opinion one way or the other will determine if the nominator moves on to season two, and starts the process again. 24 episodes are up for deletion, some don't have full plot summaries added yet, but the vote determines whether the episodes have the right to exist to be expanded upon later. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- I thought I had posted in them all. Someone should combine all nominations as one, if they are going to be nominated all at once. Dream Focus 08:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1) I look over any whose link color indicates I hadn't visited that article yet, then clicked it, and from there the article for deletion nomination. I think I got them all now. Feel free to post my default response if you see any I missed, or find any other episodes that had millions of viewers and yet was still nominated for deletion. It is ridiculous we don't have a wikipedia wide vote, and determine a set standard on what remains and what doesn't, by the consensus of everyone, thus eliminating problems like this from constantly coming up. Dream Focus 08:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- He is already moving on to season two: 5 O’Clock Charlie --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yet again, I am forced to follow along behind Richard Arthur Norton to defend myself against his baseless accusations and alarmism. That was nominated at the same time as all these other episodes. Please stop all the nonsense hand-waving and Bad Faith harassment.
Further, I notice Richard Arthur Norton's canvassing actions above. ThuranX (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
No.
I will continue to nominate the m individually, because indiividually is how they need to be considered. Besides, inclusionists always, ALWAYS, crush mass noms of episodes with repeated votes of bad faith nominations, ensuring that no individual episodes are actually considered, turning the arguement into some SOAPBOX mess about Notability policy being flawed because if someone bothered to write an article then surely whatever they wrote about must've been notable to them and therefore must be kept. I will nominate each, and find that the vanity presses and tv guide listings currently being used are insufficient. None of those are Reliable Sources for proof of actual Real World Notability. ThuranX (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- The outcome will be the same no matter what. As long as people who vote in one episode, notice that the same exact thing is elsewhere, they'll go there instead and say the same thing. Shouldn't you wait to see the outcome of the current season being nominated, before trying to destroy the episode articles for another season? And while you are here, tell me, do you believe that deleting articles that some might find interesting to read, you are helping the wikipedia, and if so, how? Would these articles hurt the wikipedia in any possible way, if allowed to remain? Dream Focus 19:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
participation in projects
You will not help the project by asking people to leave it. If nothing else, it's a sure way of getting them to dislike it and what it does. Yes, there is inefficiency and conflict from Wikipedia being an open project, but that it is an open project is still the most important positive thing about what we do here. DGG (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Does it help the project to have one editor constantly arguing with people and causing problems? More people are discouraged from joining or participating, seeing nothing but conflict filling up the project page, and so after a short time just ignoring it altogether. And those who dislike the project, do so because their efforts to mindless destroy something they don't like, have failed at times because of the attention it brings to those articles. Dream Focus 22:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- "constantly arguing with people and causing problems" actually describes several editors' contributions at Ars talk. pablohablo. 23:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comments like " … are you even in the Rescue Squadron? Stop messing with our FAQ" don't help the project either. pablohablo. 09:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- So letting someone edit the FAQ to change the meaning of one part to say the opposite, would be? Dream Focus 09:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. I did not mention the edit, or your subsequent reversion, either favourably or otherwise. Your edit summary is what I was referring to, because that is where you made the comment which I quoted above. pablohablo. 10:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Check the members list. You have someone who is not a member of the project, but is trying to change the FAQ, to say the very opposite of what it did before. My edit summary is fine. Dream Focus 10:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- The project, like Wikipedia, is open. Any editor can edit any page. A name on a list simply means that some people like to put their names on lists. Others do not. "One doesn't get to be an article rescuer by signing a page in the project namespace. One gets to be an article rescuer by rescuing articles. Nothing more, nothing less."[18] pablohablo. 11:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Check the members list. You have someone who is not a member of the project, but is trying to change the FAQ, to say the very opposite of what it did before. My edit summary is fine. Dream Focus 10:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. I did not mention the edit, or your subsequent reversion, either favourably or otherwise. Your edit summary is what I was referring to, because that is where you made the comment which I quoted above. pablohablo. 10:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- So letting someone edit the FAQ to change the meaning of one part to say the opposite, would be? Dream Focus 09:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comments like " … are you even in the Rescue Squadron? Stop messing with our FAQ" don't help the project either. pablohablo. 09:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- "constantly arguing with people and causing problems" actually describes several editors' contributions at Ars talk. pablohablo. 23:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
May 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nagatachō Strawberry. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- As I said on the talk page, consensus was to keep. Check [the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nagatachou_Strawberry AFD] and it closed as KEEP. And both I and the only other editor other than you who talked about it, agreed that the German magazine was a notable third party media source. The article is clearly notable. Stop moving against consensus, and trying to delete it, and don't call it a merge if not one sentence is going to be merged either. Dream Focus 18:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- If you are at 3RR, dont revert again, Collectionian will not hestiate to report you. Ikip (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- I know. I watch things. People that do tags like this usually just like to try to intimidate others to have their way. Dream Focus 16:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- They certainly do — [19] [20]. It's a common technique for disruptive editors to edit-war up to the point of 3rr then disengage so that the opponent reverts once too often. It's particularly effective if a tag-team is employed.[21] It's a cynical and manipulative gaming of the system, but it doesn't seem to be what Collectonian was doing here. pablohablo. 15:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I know. I watch things. People that do tags like this usually just like to try to intimidate others to have their way. Dream Focus 16:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- If you are at 3RR, dont revert again, Collectionian will not hestiate to report you. Ikip (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Black Kite preaches civility, but does his own unsolicited advice apply to himself?
See User:Dream_Focus#AfD_comments where Black Kite criticizes you about civility.
Commpare with this,[22] with Black Kite advertising that you comments are "clueless" Ikip (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- LOL! He joined wikipedia to delete stuff that most people like, and unfortunately he can't do that now, so he is quitting. Since we've faced problems with him before, closing AFD his way, ignoring consensus of all the keeps, I'm glad to see him go, and more so that I was one of the ones that caused him to give up(although he'll probably be back soon enough). The golden age may come again, and the many articles that thrived since the time when wikipedia was young, only to be destroyed by hordes of deletitionists later on who decided the encyclopedia shouldn't have such things in it, shall be restored. When notability guidelines are replaced entirely by common sense, or a large tag atop them saying "these are just suggestions people! Use the reasoning part of your brain for things!" I dream of a day this will come to pass, and wikipedia will be the interesting paradise it once was. Dream Focus 00:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Strengths of arguments in favor of keeping?
It appears you're well-versed on this subject and have a lot of experience with these types of issues.... if you have a moment, can you take another look at this page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lenora_Claire and tell me what our strongest argument is in favor of keeping this article on Wikipedia? Thanks. Dogtownclown (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I just went and added a reason after reading through some references on her article page. She gets mentioned in many news sources, and is featured in a bestselling novel. Both of those things make her notable, based on the third party media reference suggested guideline for notability. Dream Focus 03:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input... I thought maybe I was going crazy or missing something! Dogtownclown (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Some people just decide they don't like something, and without giving it a second thought, try to delete it. Getting through to these people, is rather difficult. Whether something is kept or not, depends entirely on whoever is around at the time, who decides to participate, it going either way. Dream Focus 16:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Venture Capital Investment Competition, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. The template says, very clearly: "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself."
Your record with deletion discussion is already compromised. DO NOT REMOVE THE MAINTENANCE TEMPLATE AGAIN. Logical Premise Ergo? 18:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)