User talk:Dream Focus

Wikipedia ads	file info – #193

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

inclThis user is an inclusionist.

This user rescues articles for the Article Rescue Squadron.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years and 25 days.

Dream Focus Talk Page

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

Re: Deletionists

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

Akane-chan Overdrive

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

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

WP:NPA

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

You have different parts of your brain. Instead of using their reasoning skills to determine if something should remain, some prefer to ignore everything other than the policy rules. That is a fact, not an insult. An example of this would be the case where a woman couldn't move her car, since after a storm a tree had blown down atop of it. Someone then gave her a parking ticket for being there past hours. According to the rules, she shouldn't have been parked there at night, and thus was ticked. Have you honestly never met anyone like that before in your life? I mention above that bit, about how they don't think its notable if its on the bestseller's list, because the rules state you have to be mentioned in a newspaper review. That's the thought of people I am complaining about, they unable to or simply not wishing to use the reasoning parts of their brains. Dream Focus 19:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(refactor) Not a great analogy, to be honest. Perhaps others would argue that such policies are there for a reason. Is it too much to ask that you alter that particular sentence? Black Kite 19:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I replaced it with something else to get the point across better. I think it came out much better. Next time please discuss before editing someone's user page though. And I welcome and encourage all discussion about the content of it here, on my talk page. Please share your opinion of the content. Dream Focus 19:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Fine. Less scientific, but less likely to be misinterpreted I suppose. No need for me to put up a schematic of the human brain, and point out exactly what part of them is not developed properly, and how this means they all suck at math and all logic solving problems. Can't "think outside the box", as they say. Dream Focus 20:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!

	WELCOME	from a Article Rescue Squad member
	Welcome to Article Rescue Squadron Dream Focus, a dynamic list of articles needing to be rescued, which changes with new updates, can be found here: Articles tagged for deletion and rescue I look forward to working with you in the future. Ikip (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• merge

One entry found.

Function: verb

to become combined into one: to blend or come together without abrupt change <merging traffic>

synonyms see mix

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

• 'delete

One entry found.

Function: transitive verb

Etymology: Latin deletus, past participle of delēre to wipe out, destroy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would that bother me at all? I have the right to state my opinions about the wikipedia, and so I did. If any editor did this, and some in fact clearly do, in my opinion they are a bad editor. Such behavior should not be tolerated. Dream Focus 11:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you are NOT allowed to characterize others as bad editors - that contravenes WP:NPA and is disruptive (exactly as the opposite would be). Remove it, please. Black Kite 11:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There. I changed it, so it doesn't call anyone bad. It now is called "What I consider horrible editing practices", so isn't attacking anyone, just stating criticism of certain practices people go through Dream Focus 11:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. It's not that you're not allowed to give personal opinions here, it's only when those opinions are negative and you present them as facts that it becomes a problem. Black Kite 11:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What? Anyone can consider the opinions of someone negative, if they disagree with them. And it is a fact that certain editors use such tactics. Dream Focus 12:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that might've been unclear. What I mean is that it's perfectly OK to say "I consider this a bad editing practice" (opinion), but it's not OK to say "People who do this are bad editors" (opinion presented as fact). See the difference? Black Kite 12:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't say people who do bad things are bad people, only criticize their actions as bad. Alright then. State your negative opinion about an action, but not the people who do it. Understood. Dream Focus 12:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not just a personal attack issue; it's an appalling assumption of bad faith; tweaking the title does nothing about that. Jack Merridew 12:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I criticize the methods used by some to delete an article, against consensus. Are you suggesting someone who does this, isn't doing it on purpose, or didn't know better? If I said that sending the same article to AFD twice from the same editor was wrong, would that be assuming bad faith? I've seen that happen before. Or would it lead to a bad faith assumption that this person is just trying to go against consensus from previous AFD, and keeps trying until they got the result they wanted? If an article was deleted, and then someone who voted Keep tried to recreate it, and the information was exactly the same as before, wouldn't that be wrong? Does whether or not you agree with the actions being criticized, or the person using them, influence what you believe is right or wrong to post criticism of? Dream Focus 12:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleting 'articles' that don't reasonably meet sound inclusion criteria improves the project. You seem to miss that the Evil Deletionist^® Cabal is seeking the improvement of the project. Have you noticed that no one is proposing to delete Asia, The Canterbury Tales, or Jainism? Japanese porn twins, ephemeral dross such as TV shows, and weapons lists for (what?) video games are another matter; much of this sort of stuff amounts to little more than silverfish damaging the project as a whole. Jack Merridew 12:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The content of the article is not relevant. You don't delete something simply because you don't like it. If you don't believe something should be allowed on wikipedia, then change the policy to say no episode list, no porn, etc. Saying sometimes its alright, and sometimes it isn't, is just wrong. A significant number of page views for wikipedia are sex related though, with popular culture getting more than half. I don't recall where they keep the stats though, but it is interesting to see. And you can't improve the project by deleting articles, simply because of some unreasonable guideline, which discriminates against many types of media which simply don't get reviewed at all. I protest the unfairness. Dream Focus 12:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleting content that is not appropriate for inclusion always improves the project; no exceptions. If the goal was to focus on including content that vast numbers of people simply want, we would be all about uploading copyvios off porn sites. This, however, is an encyclopedia, not a porn site or fan site. Wikipedia discriminates against content all the time per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; deal with it. Jack Merridew 08:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You do NOT improve the project by erasing stuff the vast majority of people want to read. You should not remove all the fancruft/trivia, if the overwhelming majority of people enjoy reading it. And until someone in charge of wikipedia, or a vote of the majority of the people who use wikipedia, says that certain things shouldn't be allowed, then I see no reason to delete it. Any guideline that is enacted by a small number of people, is not to be taken seriously. Wikipedia used to have trivia sections on almost every article, and no need for any notable reference in a third party media source to justify its existence, we using common sense instead. Then a small number of people go and change the rules, and began deleting everything they don't like and get away with removing. All the fancruft once very common in articles, was removed, leaving many to be brief, boring bits of information you could easily find from the back of the box the media came in, without anything anyone would actually want to come here and read. Dream Focus 10:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has always required verifiability from it's conception i believe. Nothing has changed in that respect. An article cannot achieve guideline status without a wide community consensus, it has to go to the village pump. People can't just write things and declare them a guideline and in the same way articles cannot simply be deleted without discussion. The process is not perfect but if you stufy Wikipedia:Deletion policy you'll find it works fine the vast majority of times. --neon white talk 02:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Which only goes to prove that you're missing two main points - firstly, this is an encyclopedia. It isn't a fan wiki, somebody's personal website, a collection of trivia, or more importantly original research. For the material you mention, there are better places for it to be - dedicated wikis for nearly every fictional universe possible, where people can write about such things in excruciating detail. Secondly, you don't get to ignore guidelines or policies because you don't agree with them. If "only a small number of people" actually agreed with them, they would have been changed a long time ago. There are often discussions about such things - see WP:FICT for example. We have had votes involving many people about many guidelines and policies; they are not set in stone. If you want them changed, start a centralised discussion - see WP:CENT. (Starting discussions like this one isn't going to get many views, as was pointed out to you. Black Kite 10:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on the article, to be honest. There can be reasons for sending an article to AfD a number of times. For example, there might be a feeling at the first AfD that the article is capable of becoming notable, and it is therefore kept. However, a year later, if it hasn't improved, it might be felt that the first AfD got it wrong. Or accepted notability might change over time - for example, there is much more community will to delete marginally notable BLPs these days, after many problems in the past. The other problem I think here is that you're not quite grasping the concept of "consensus". Wikipedia is not a democracy, and AfDs are not a vote. For example, an AfD with three Keep votes, each of which gives a good policy-based reason to keep, and ten Delete votes which are all "Delete, this isn't notable" might well be closed as Keep and the closing admin would have a good reason for doing so. I've noticed recently that you've stated that articles are saved at AfD "if they've got enough fans" - well, whilst that might be the case sometimes, the number of fans doesn't make a difference if they can't give any other reason that "I like this article" for it to be kept. Works both ways. Black Kite 12:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Some episode articles are kept, even without anything to prove them notable, while others for series with less fans around to protest, are deleted. Simple as that. And what is this about renominating something if you thought the AFD got it wrong? Can you recreate an article a year after it was deleted, because you disagree with the AFD? And to clarify, I mean the exact same article, not something that has been changed at all. Dream Focus 12:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Quite often you will see AFDs closed with a comment like "giving marginal article a chance to improve". If (in say a year's time) the article hasn't improved, another AfD would be perfectly in order. There's no problem with multiple AfDs as long as it isn't done disruptively, because sometimes AfD gets it wrong. Don't forget, there's always WP:DRV as a check when it does. Black Kite 13:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have tried to explain several times that merge and delete are complete different processes but it never seems to register. --neon white talk 02:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment on an AfD?

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

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

Of course it was. It is a perfectly legitimate question. I've never heard anyone else suggest such a thing, and it seems absolutely ridiculous to think anyone does that, other than certain religious cults. If a publishing company was going to do that, wouldn't they do it with all their books then? This book was the end of a rather long running series. A series that wouldn't have had hundreds of books published in it, unless the sales were significant. His unproven conspiracy theory seems absolutely ridiculous to me, so I was wondering if anyone else believed it or not. Dream Focus 05:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You'd be suprised what stunts PR/marketing companies get up to. But in the end it's none of our concern. --neon white talk 13:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• If the overwhelming majority of people said to keep an article, but you felt it didn't meet all the guidelines, would you delete it anyway? Is the opinion of a closing administrator all that counts, or are the opinions of everyone equally valid, and thus you willing to let them decide the fate of an article through consensus? Is there any possible reason to have a discussion at all, if administrators decide outright what should be deleted, never considering keeping it, regardless of the will of others? Policies must be followed always, according to the wikipedia rules, but the guidelines are just suggestions, and can be ignored according to wikipedia law. If the consensus of the people in the AFD, say to ignore the guidelines, and Keep an article, would you accept this? Or do you believe that all guidelines should be considered absolute law? Dream Focus 02:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, if I was at RfA, my reply would be "that's seven questions, three of which are the same question, and far too confusing - please rewrite it". However, I'll have a look at your questions anyway.
  • One thing I will say that you are bringing up again in the above question three times, and also in a comment you made recently at an RfA, is that you still don't seem to grasp that AfD is not a vote. Still, here we go...
    • " If the overwhelming majority of people said to keep an article, but you felt it didn't meet all the guidelines, would you delete it anyway?". I can only think of two circumstances - (a) in an RfA which contained a majority of Keep votes which provided no policy-based reason, and a minority of Delete votes which gave good reasoning, and even then I might go "no consensus" unless the issue was particularly obvious. (b) Where an AfD has been disrupted by sockpuppetry and other vote-rigging.
    • " Is the opinion of a closing administrator all that counts?" Clearly not, or we wouldn't bother having a discussion. The function of the closing admin is to interpret that discussion in the light of consensus and strength of argument.
    • " or are the opinions of everyone equally valid?" No, they're not. The opinions of someone who types "Keep it's notable" or "Delete not notable" are clearly a lot less valid that someone who provides a well-argued policy-based argument, and any admin should give such comments a lot less weight, or none at all. Again - AfD is not a vote.
    • " (are) you willing to let them decide the fate of an article through consensus?". See above. Consensus is only part of it. AfD is not a vote.
    • "Is there any possible reason to have a discussion at all, if administrators decide outright what should be deleted, never considering keeping it, regardless of the will of others?" I think I've answered that in the three above answers (it's actually the same question - if you're thinking of posting it at RfA, I'd remove this part)
    • "If the consensus of the people in the AFD, say to ignore the guidelines, and Keep an article, would you accept this?" That's the same question again - consensus is only part of it, strength of argument must be considered, AfD is not a vote. Again, I'd remove this part as you're just repeating yourself.
    • "Or do you believe that all guidelines should be considered absolute law?". Policies are, apart from in very exceptional circumstances, treated as law on Wikipedia. Guidelines are just that - guidelines, but you'd still have to have a very good reason for not following them. For example, commenting "Keep - isn't notable according to the guidelines, but it's an interesting article" at an AfD is likely to be roundly discounted. Black Kite 09:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What about this [1]? No third party media coverage whatsoever, but it is a bestselling novel. Some say no references so you have to delete it, others say its a bestseller so keep it. How about, the notability guidelines are stupid, bias, and unfair, and should be ignored? Why does the opinion of a couple of reviewers in a newspaper or magazine count, and not the opinion of a large number of fans? What about types of media which don't get reviewed, ever? Every major movie that is produced by Hollywood gets reviewed, good or bad, while most novels, manga/comics, do not get reviewed anywhere these days. Can that be a good reason to ignore the requirement to have third party media coverage to establish notability, instead of what the majority of people in the AFD consider clear evidence of a large fan base? Dream Focus 14:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see Collectonian's point there (let's face it, you would expect more coverage of a supposedly best-selling novel) but I think this is an exception. I would certainly close that AfD as Keep at the moment, though with so little coverage it may actually be better - in Wikipedia terms - to cover it as part of a much better article about the series, with a section on this book. The reasoning would be "what is the better Wikipedia article - one about the series with lots of sources, citations and a good explanation of the plot of the series as a whole, or lots of stubs about individual books which are little more than plot summaries"? If I'm reading an article, I'd rather see all the info in one place rather than having to jump around between articles. So I can see both sides here. Black Kite 17:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Where else is the information at? If you just like one line on a page mentioning something, that's already there. If you want something to read, you need an article for it. And it'll expand in time. That's what stub articles do... sometimes. We don't need no stinking references. Dream Focus 18:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No. WP:V (which is a policy) demands references. That isn't a problem for the example we've discussed above, but it may well be for other articles. Black Kite 00:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is. Yep. That includes websites. That verifies it exists, and that's all that matters to satisfy the policy. If its a webcomic, then you can verify it exist by linking to its website. To prove its notable, is up to consensus, people deciding whether its notable for being on a bestsellers list, or having 100,000 hits on Google when searching for blogs, websites, and forums where people talked about it, or having been mentioned in some obscure magazine, or reviewed on a website that gets far more hits on any given day than that magazine has subscribers. One you prove something exist, no matter what it is, verification policy is requirements are met, and people can then decide if its notable using their own common sense, ignoring the notability guidelines entirely. Dream Focus 00:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• You seem to have a problem with notability. Proving something exists is utterly irrelevant - that's not what WP:V is for. If everything that could be proved to exist was worthy of a Wikipedia article, we'd have ground to a halt years ago. And you still seem to have this weird conception that some random consensus is what we base notability on. We don't. We base it on notability. Black Kite 01:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

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

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

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

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

testing out this subpage thing

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

It works. Interesting. When someone goes to create an article, they should link them to the policy rules, and tell them also how to do this, to gather everything they need to defend it against people with nothing better to do than to casually destroy other people's work. Dream Focus 04:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• They already do - when a user tries to create a page, they are linked to Wikipedia:Your first article, like this. Black Kite 12:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Consider creating the article first in your user space As a registered user, you have your own user space. You can start your new article there, on a subpage; you can get it in shape, take your time, ask other editors to help work on it, and only move it into the "live" Wikipedia once it is ready to go. To create your own subpage, see here. When your new article is ready for "prime time", you can move it into the main area.

No link to tell people how straight away. Need to say User:Your_name_here/draft of article straight away. No one is going to bother clicking around to different pages, and reading things through, before starting an article, as evident by the fact that they currently don't. Need to tell them directly. Dream Focus 14:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Collapsing talkpage sections

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

Collapsing talkpage sections
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What you do place a {{hat|type your title in here}} template at the top of the section and a {{hab}} at the bottom. Less effort than what you have been doing perhaps. pablohablo. 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Boldly clarified your proposal

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

That's fine. The tool I used before, but can't remember, listed things in order of contributions, whoever did the most text added was first. Didn't subtract things removed though, since that isn't relevant. I can't find it in my bookmarks, and don't remember which one it was. If you want to post this somewhere else as well, go for it. The only thing of importance, is that we get it done. Dream Focus 18:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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

That link is for who did the most edits. I was thinking of the one that counts how much text each editor added. I used it before, but can't seem to find it. Dream Focus 19:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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

I am now using you as a cautionary tale of what not to do when arguing with editors, when I warn other editors. email now...Ikip (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Got distracted by other things. I see consensus seems to favor my proposal. Poll Now where do we post this at? I think someone posted a link somewhere, but I can't seem to find it. Way too many pages to keep track of. I think the points I made will be enough to convince most to accept this. Dream Focus 23:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Fancruft template

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

Alright. As long as people can still see it. Seeing how you did that, I decided to play around, and make my own variation tags. That would be funny to see them used instead. Maybe on the wikia at least. Dream Focus 14:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You can see what code any template produces by substing it: instead of {{fancruft}} I typed {{subst:fancruft}} so that when the page is read, the contents of the template are loaded into the page - it's the same principle as typing four tildes and getting your signature. pablo_hablo. 14:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Policy links to fight off future harassment

Notifying interested people

Wikipedia:AFDHOWTO#Notifying_interested_people:

Notifying substantial contributors to the article

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#AfD Wikietiquette:

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

Place a notification on significant pages that link to nomination

Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination states:

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

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

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)

May 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nagatachō Strawberry. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strengths of arguments in favor of keeping?

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

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

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

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

archiving now

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

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

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

Rugrats characters - Please reconsider!

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

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

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

archiving

on a different point, have you considered archiving your talk page? it's getting very big. see WP:ARCHIVE. thanks LibStar (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I archived about half of it already. Might get around to doing more later, but no real reason to. Even someone with a primitive 56k modem connection can load it up without much delay. Dream Focus 14:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles?

Hi, I'm just interested to know if you do much article work, or stick to AfDs? You didn't mention any article work on your user page, which was pretty lengthy. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You can check my contributions here although that is a lot to sort through. I never really saw a reason to list articles I've worked on, or created, since if someone is interested in something, they'll probably find it, and won't care who wrote it. Unless they are out to get me. You know, argue about something, then decide to instantly go to something I created and nominate it for deletion. I created new articles at times, add to existing ones, and read a lot of stuff that interest me. Plus I'm the administrator of the Gantz wiki, doing a lot of work on it, after some evil deletionists decided to mass murder the content of the wikipedia Gantz article and destroy a perfectly legitimate side article I had created. Dream Focus 11:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on displaying time since last edit

Hi, you weighed in on the "display time since last edit on article" discussion at the Village pump. I have now started a straw poll on the subject at WP:Village pump (proposals)#Straw poll. Your opinion would be appreciated. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Telepathy and war

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

update

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

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

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

Sources for Types of Gestures

Hello. I hope we can count on your assistance in adding reliable sources to Types of gestures. I have located a few sources, but many hands make light work. Cnilep (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I added some last night. I'll look around for more later if I get the time. Dream Focus 17:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Clone Republic Tech

Sorry, haven't logged in for ages.

I'll try to. I've only just managed to get three of the four books. I'll try and find the various resources soon. - NemFX (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Brooke Greenberg

A tag has been placed on Brooke Greenberg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I see someone else already took down your speedy delete tag. Honestly now. Massive news coverage over the years, on someone who doesn't age, a one of a kind medical condition. The article has references, and is perfectly fine. Dream Focus 01:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm wondering how you found that page. Your history shows you posted on the External link discussion where I disagreed with you, and then instantly went and nominated for deletion a page I had recently created.

1. 01:02, 27 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Brooke Greenberg ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). using TW)
2. 01:01, 27 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:External links ‎ (→WP:EL and the official Shonen Jump Myspace page: reply)

Seems a bit odd. Dream Focus 01:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

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

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

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

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

Rollback?

Hey, DF, I've seen you around a lot, and you seem like a good, serious contributor, so I was surprised when I saw this and this. Not because they were bad reversions, because of course, you did good work there. But it was too much work. And then it occurred to me—you don't have rollback, do you? I can't imagine why not. It makes vandal reverting so much easier and quicker. Have you thought about getting it? Unschool 02:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! I just posted on the talk page of the administrator Philosopher, asking for the ability. It would save a lot of time dealing with the forces of evil that threaten the sanctity of Wikipedia. Dream Focus 14:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Your request for rollback is  Done. Please review WP:ROLLBACK before using it and remember to only use rollback for cases of blatant vandalism. Happy editing! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell

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

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

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

Logan Lynn

I think you may want to look over Logan Lynn's article discussion page again..you inadvertently cracked me up! --XxSoulSurvivorxX

Manon Batiste

I saw your comment on the AfD and thought you should know RealPoor isn't actually a magazine: it's effectively a blog and an unreliable source. User:A Nobody isn't bothering to check what sources he's using for reliability I've begun to notice, as he cited That Guy with the Glasses as a source in another article. Not saying "VOTE DELETE" or whatever, just suggesting you might change your rationale there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That Guy with the Glasses has enough viewers for a regularly made show, that he counts as notable as anything on mainstream television. But I'll check the RealPoor source though. Dream Focus 17:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right. That site encourages illegal downloads, people asking for things on their front page. I rewrote my reasoning why she is a notable enough fictional character to deserve her own article. Hopefully if its kept, no one will go insane, ignore the majority, and redirect it anyway claiming consensus that clearly wasn't there. Dream Focus 18:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record the issue with the TGWTG source was that it wasn't the host himself who made the list, but one of his hostees (I'll have to double check but I believe it was Film Brain under a pseudonym). Though I'm not sure how well anything from the site at all would fly at a FAC for reliability. (see arguments against Angry Video Game Nerd, Screwattack :\)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As for Manon...eh, if her article can be improved I'm all for it. I'd offer to dig for sources but I have a cleanup with the soulcaibur characters to contend with currently, working out which to spinout from the character list once sources are found...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN3#multiple users at Bulbasaur (Result: )

You have been mentioned at WP:AN3#multiple users at Bulbasaur (Result: ).—Kww(talk) 18:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon

If you're going to attack me, I suggest two things - (a) you get your facts correct for once (I merely reverted to the last consensus position, and started the RFC to gain further consensus), and (b) you learn the difference between a merge and a deletion. Black Kite 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no difference in this case. You are overstepping your bounds here, and you know it. If you don't think this formerly featured article is notable, then send it to an AFD, and do things properly. You had several people wanting to keep it, and I don't recall that many wishing it destroyed. There was no consensus to delete/merge/redirect/whatever you want to call it. Dream Focus 23:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, you are wrong on most counts. I will have one last attempt at explaining this to you. The article was merged, not by me, but by the Pokemon WikiProject, who after all I would expect to be the people who would be able to judge whether the article met our notability guidelines. There was a discussion at the Pokemon WikiProject page, and there was consensus to do this, so you are wrong to say that there wasn't.

The article was then re-instated by Colonel Warden ([7]), who added a small amount to it, however this was then reverted by a member of the WikiProject. Per WP:BRD - after Bold and Revert, the correct action is Discuss. This did not happen, and an edit-war ensued. This was wrong. All I did was exactly what any admin would be expected to do - restore the position to the one before the edit war started, and inform all parties that they are expected to discuss the issue rather than edit-warring - and so you are wrong to say I "overstepped my bounds". In fact, I even went further than that and started the RFC that you commented on in order than consensus can be reached. I have no interest in the article or whether it is notable or not, my actions as an admin were merely to stop the disruptive editing that had occurred.

Now you can agree with that or not, but if the article is to be restored, there should be a consensus to do so, exactly as there was a consensus to merge it in the first place. And the place to do that is at the RFC. The original article is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur. If you can improve it with suitable third-party significant commentary, then you will have a far better chance of having it restored. Black Kite 00:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The only people that join those Wikiprojects just canvas one another there, and then gang up on one thing after another they don't like, and destroy it. The point before the conflict was when the article was still there, not after it was gone. The edit war starts when someone decided to eliminate the article, and thus should've been restored to that point. Any why not leave the history there? Let late arrivals know what was going on? This should be discussed at the AFD. Otherwise any small gang of people that hang out at the same Wikiproject, can just rampage around wiping out vast numbers of articles on a whim, which is basically what is happening now. Dream Focus 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• If you don't believe an article should exist, should you send it to AFD and go through that process, or just go ahead and eliminate it outright? We have AFD for a reason don't we? Dream Focus 00:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • But AfD is for deleting articles completely. This article hasn't been deleted - it's been merged - look, here it is. Black Kite 00:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, you only deleted most of it, and whatever token amount is over there, will probably be reduced in time, that usually how they do it. Why delete the history though? And Dream Focus 00:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Will you please get it into your head that I didn't delete anything? The merge was performed by the WikiProject, the history is still there at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur so that it can be restored if the article is moved back, and the place to discuss it is at the RFC. Black Kite 00:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging articles

Re [8] if we can't find enough 3rd party coverage then it will end up merged/redirected. The eventual plan was to merge these into a Glossary of Internet Relay Chat clients but updating Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients and keeping them as redirects in the interim means we can always backtrack through the breadcrumb link and pull the information from the redirected article to merge into the Glossary article. All of these redirected articles are meticulously cataloged and tracked. See Category:Needed-Class IRC articles as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC/To Do List, Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC/Index, and Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC/Redirects.
So please, stop assuming and implying [9] [10] that I'm some sort of "Evil Deletionist" hellbent on deleting articles.
--Tothwolf (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It all ends the same, and that is with the article gone. You can argue constantly like others, but it doesn't change the fact, that you just eliminated it, by one means or another. And what your eventually plan is, isn't relevant. Eliminating an article, and putting just a token mention or a single line of information on a list somewhere, is the same as deletion, and even that one line of information will be "pruned" eventually because if it was notable enough to mention on a list, it'd be notable enough to have its own article. Please keep this on the appropriate discussion page. Dream Focus 09:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You sir, have sullied my honour and I demand satisfaction! WP:WHACK!
In all seriousness, please do not insult me. I'm not sure which "one line" of information you are referring to but I don't do single line mentions for redirects as I happen to agree with you in that some people tend to do drive-by removals (I've been watching a pair of editors do just that as a tag team elsewhere– and I'm keeping track of it).
The notability guideline does not dictate what is not included in an actual article or list; the only thing it was designed to do is to help determine if a particular subject should have its own standalone article. Unfortunately for all of us, it is often misused by people wishing to force their own POV and remove content from an article or list and it is treated by some as a policy even though as a guideline it was never intended to be interpreted that way.
If you would like to lend a hand with creating some of these larger articles you are always welcome to join the wikiproject as we could always use the help. You might also want to have a read over this to get a better understanding of what exactly was going on at AfD before you go about calling me a deletionist.
--Tothwolf (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

For clarification merging an article by cutting out the content and turning it into a redirect does not count as deleting it on wikipedia, as the history is still viewable by any editor Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Polanski

Because as far as I know he was convicted of statutory rape. Which is not the same as child molestation. Garion96 (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The page for Child molester, redirects to Child sex abuse, and indicates it is the same thing. A child is defined as anyone under the age of adulthood. Having sex with a minor, someone below the age of consent, is child molestation, child rape, or statutory rape, whatever you want to call it. Dream Focus 10:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't actually HAVE to be fair. Just NPOV and Verifiable. WookMuff (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't called statutory rape in the court documents was it? Call it by what it was when he was convicted of it, don't try to reword it to make it sound less severe than it was. You already have those who wish to call it statutory rape, claiming she didn't fight back enough, she enjoyed it, and she wasn't a virgin so that somehow made it not be as horrible somehow? There are plenty of newspapers and other reliable sources that call him a child molester, which he is. He admitted in his own biography he had sex with a 13 year old! Dream Focus 01:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Was that in response to me? I got a 24hr ban for Calling that editor pro-child molestation when he first raised his head in this section of the talk page WookMuff (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You can verify that the guy was a child rapist. The only people wishing to lessen what it sounds like, keep denying it was rape, blaming the victim, and making ridiculous claims. I'm hoping the number of reasonable people will outweigh those in denial. Dream Focus 03:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have said many times that I want Roman Polanski to die in an orange jumpsuit, either rotting in his cell or beaten to death by people who think raping 13yr olds is bad form. But the ARTICLE has to comply to the standards, policies, and legality of Wikipedia. If the article is about a living person, then its gotta be bulletproof. Wait til he is dead then you can call him anything you want. WookMuff (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Take care

You removed my comment [11]. Please take more care next time Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! I tried to submit, it said someone had just posted, so I copied my stuff over... I hit the wrong submit button by mistake I suppose. I thought I had added my bit after your recent addition. Sorry about that. Dream Focus 18:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy

This is a courtesy note to let you know a dispute you were involved in at Secret Wars has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae. You are not specifically involved in the request for clarification, which rather involves the behaviour of User:Asgardian, but I mention it here out of courtesy. Hiding T 13:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to say or where to place it. This user mass deletes information on a whim, insisting its all junk, regardless of the opinions of others. Dream Focus 10:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for following up on my note on Jamie Leigh Jones.DoctorCaligari (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

Taking the bait

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, that's what I did. [12] And the account got banned. Dream Focus 15:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

List of stereoscopic video games

It's not fixing it to remove the info; at least not all of it. The article is still had issues. The OR may have been removed, but that's it.陣内_Jinnai 23:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If you claim there is a problem, tag that problem area to indicate what you mean. Every single one of the games listed provides information in that article that it is a stereoscopic video game. Reviews of those games all call it that as well. They all come with 3D glasses even. So what's the problem? You just have nonsense tags cluttering up the page. Dream Focus 23:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Human suit

in connection with this, see my comment at WT:NOT, & the request now at deletion review. I apologize for missing it in the first place. The thing to do, as is often the case, is to make a new one, but better. Nothing here stays dead, if people care enough. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Human_disguise The request is for something else though. And if the number of published sources calling it a human suit, and describing it clearly as an alien living inside of it to pass as a human, didn't convince people to save it before, I don't think there is any hope for it. It all depends on who is around at the time to comment, and the opinions and methods of the closing editor of course. Dream Focus 00:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your user page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aruna Shanbhag

What was your grounds for deleting the CSD tag on Aruna Shanbhag? The author never cites what journalist covered her story, and a simple Google search for "Aruna Shanbhag" brings up nothing substantial, and certainly nothing about a rape case. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, English speaking news media doesn't cover it, it not something that made international news. There was a book published about her by a journalist, as the article says, I confirming that. I find plenty of Google results for this woman and the book about her. The article is currently being worked on by the creator of the article. I'm sure he'll add some news sources after reading the talk page request for some. Just search in the native language, and something will surely come up. Dream Focus 23:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good call, Dream Focus. For more details, see WP:WIHSD#A7. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Apelbaum Patent Notability Question

Hi DreamFocus,

I just wanted to follow-up on your question\comment regarding the availability of resources indicating that his patents are being used commercially. I found the following link originally published by First Data. 1. Do you think this would suffice?--JAF 05:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Inventing something important for a major company to buy and make use of, seems notable. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I Google his name and that company [13] and it seems he is suing them also. Didn't get paid enough I suppose. Dream Focus 05:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Barbarain II cover art.jpg

New image uploaded, same dimensions but the file size is smaller - the old one is 420×640 the new one is 263×400 Skier Dude (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks the same when loaded up. The previous one was slightly smaller still. But, whatever. All the same to me. Dream Focus 03:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Advisory

Cease making bad-faith assertions on Talk:Roman Polanski regarding my actions. Your comments on User talk:Tombaker321 are also noted for the record. I agree people should have different styles. But beyond some point the patterns of some styles are poisonous to the community.

Continuing as you are will result in formal complaint under WP:Civility. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Complain all you want. You were loosing your argument, so you tried to stop all future discussion. You had no possible reason to take an active discussion, a couple of hours after the last post, and just stick it in an archive telling people they could read it but not reply. That's just insane. That isn't a different style, its someone who didn't like being shot down on their ridiculous nonstop argument about Polanski not knowing her age, the evidence overwhelming in your face, and you panicking. Dream Focus 04:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your characterizations are noted for the record. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, yours too. Dream Focus 13:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Human suit recreated as Human disguise

This is a notice to all who participated in the recent AfD of Human suit, here, that resulted in a consensus for delete. This article has been recreated as "Human disguise", and has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise. Thank you. Verbal chat 21:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dream, this should be of interest to you: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise (2nd nomination) --Milowent (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

About reference you added to Na Na Na Na

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

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

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

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

Humanx Commonwealth lists

Hi. I noticed that you've merged a number of individual Humanx Commonwealth articles to lists.

• List of Humanx Commonwealth characters (talk)
• List of Humanx Commonwealth races (talk)

There are a couple of issues with your mergers.

1. As described in Help:Merging#Performing the merger, a link to the original article must be provided. It would be appreciated if you could make a list of article names and place it on the article's talk page. Are they simply the links in Template:The Humanx Commonwealth? I'll take it from there.
2. It looks like you merged some of these while their AfDs were still open, which should be avoided. The AfDs I saw were closed as merge or redirect, so no major action is necessary. You may be interested in the discussion WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD.

Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If not a single person says keep, then you can assume its not going to be kept. If there was the slightest chance it would be kept, then I wouldn't have had to do this. Also, most articles weren't but a paragraph long. Only one article was of reasonable size, and I was the only one who said Keep, so I'm sure it has no chance at all. And yes, all the Humanx Commonwealth articles I am aware of, past and present, were listed on that template back in March. [14] If you could handle the red link stuff I can't access, I'd appreciate it. I don't know how else to find them all, since those deleted won't appear in any searches. Dream Focus 09:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm.. this is odd. [15] Because the content is already found elsewhere, shouldn't be a reason for a decision. I wonder if it would've ended the same way otherwise. Dream Focus 09:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the attribution for List of Humanx Commonwealth characters (history). List of Humanx Commonwealth races and Humanx Commonwealth#Major species are similar, and they may both need attribution. AAnn may contain a copyright violation that needs to be fixed. Flatscan (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought the main article had the exact same information as the races article. The planet section it had, before I deleted it, was the same as the planet article. And I search for a sentence in the Aann section [16] and don't see it listed anywhere but Wikipedia, and 90 places that copy Wikipedia articles word for word. No reason to have the species information listed on the main article. I'm thinking it should just be used for listing the books, describing the series, and mentioning what the commonwealth is. I tried getting feedback on the talk page[17], but no one is saying anything, so I'll go ahead and do that now. Dream Focus 06:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski

Hi, I just wanted to explain that the reason I deleted "because of its lack of a socially redeeming message" text from the Roman Polanski page was because it is unsourced POV. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I never bothered to read that part of the article anyway. As for the previous bit, since I couldn't just revert the one edit, I had to use rollback feature to revert both at once, and doing that prevents me from making an edit summary. That's why I decided to post and tell you the reason why, so you'd know. Normally just explaining things in the edit summary is enough, and someone objects, then they discuss it on the talk page. Dream Focus 16:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of Star Wars

An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for the new discussion.--chaser (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Dream Focus. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Concurrence

While we may be at profound odds on many counts, in the matter of erasures: it physically hurts to watch it happen. The horrible waste. For nothing. Except petty power to, yes, destroy.

Our styles/spirits will almost surely always be canceling waves ... but do know that I hold in my mind the thought that Dream Focus stands in the way of destruction with as much energy as can be spared for such things ... and will work to save the effort of lifetimes in safer realms.

A salute across an unbridgeable chasm. (delete upon receipt) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude...

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

Your name was brought up by a party to the Arbitration case located here. Any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider can be added to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Workshop.

--Tothwolf (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek (film)

In your edit here you introduced an error. Captain Robau is asked "What is the current stardate?" not "What year is it?". I attempted to correct it with the results you can see here. I am waiting for Ckatz to respond to the message I left him. Please do some research into Star Trek before you edit any more Star Trek articles. -- allen四names 11:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Its the same thing. And my edit was far superior to what was there before I changed it. And my words were "When he asks what year it is, he finds he has been sent to the past." I didn't quote him at all, just stated he was asking for the date. Stop being so rude. Dream Focus 15:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:DGG#Transwiki_request

Hope this helps. I removed the response on my talk page, but quote it on DGG's page. Ikip (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009 November 25#Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series

Inre THIS... I agree that the close and delete might have been a bit pre-emptive, but you might otherwise consider asking for userfication with permission to recreate, or having it sent to WP:INCUBATE for input and improvement by others. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding versus wikistalking

I'd appreciate it if you would look at [19] and suitably amend your edit(s) at [20]? I'm asking everyone acting in my ArbCom clerk role. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Just do it please Dream, it is not worth the controversy. Jack Merridew is personally contacting the editor who made this an issue.[21] Regardless that the arbcom unanimously in two sections of an arbcom determined that Jack Merridew's sock puppet was this word in 2006,[22][23] the word is now seen as bad.

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

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

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

• I do not believe Jack Merridew is sincerely bothered by the use of the word. I find it ridiculous anyone would be complaining about its use at all. If you don't like it, then write to the dictionary companies of the world, and ask them to change the definition. There is no official rule against using it. It appears to be just the opinion of one person. Hound can mean to pressure someone for sex. So I could say that Wiki-hound is offensive, it making someone sound like a rapist. Hound is a dog, which is an offensive comment in different languages, normally said as bitch in English. Calling someone a Wiki-bitch would be offensive. Wiki-stalker is far more desirable of a term. Dream Focus 17:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Just to throw my own $0.02 in here, I tend to use both terms these days. The older term is the one I learned originally and I tend to use it more when it is clearly obvious someone is "stalking" contribs for the sake of outright harassment and disruption. I've only more recently begun to use "hounding" to "tone down" reports made on AN/I, etc of such behaviour. Both of these terms are certainly offensive if used improperly. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The change to the harassment policy where "wikistalking" was changed to "wikihounding" [24] was made on October 27, 2008. The discussion was here and having read that, I'm actually not sure I really agree with the change from "wikistalk" to "wikihound" myself now. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I doubt they are so easily distracted, and this has nothing to do with that case. While someone might try to change the subject and talk about as many different things as possible to confuse people, or for them to simply ignore the ever growing text entirely as its too much to sort through, and thus not get involved at all, I doubt a brief mention of this will affect anyone's opinion. If its at the top of a page somewhere, please link to it. All I see it commented at is [25] Dream Focus 16:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi

You have previously offered your thoughts on an article [26] and some people appear to have an interest in repeatedly deleting certain pieces of information officially citing notability. Would appreciate your thoughts on the issue.Fragma08 (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I just commented in the talk page. Dream Focus 21:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of African American neighborhoods

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of African American neighborhoods. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African American neighborhoods (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved your discussion from AN to ANI

Just a heads up -- I moved your WP:AN discussion regarding Proofreader77 to WP:ANI, as that's the more appropriate forum. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Equazcion (talk) 08:21, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Since I know you have in the past expressed a positive interest in the Saga of the Skolian Empire, I though I'd inform you about this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jagernaut. Debresser (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Invations

When speaking to other editors, please consider inviting them to the WP:Article Rescue Squadron, by using {{subst:WP:ARSI}} About 35 members have joined because I have invited these editors to ARS. Ikip (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Molecular processors

Thanks for replacing the AfD notice that the original author removed from this article - I hadn't noticed it had gone. How about removing the signature he keeps adding as well? I'm at serious risk of 3RR if I do so again, but he has major ownership issues and he needs to realise how things work around here. Cheers. andy (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I filed a report at [27]. They'll handle it. Dream Focus 00:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian RFC/U

Hi there. I was wondering if you would help me finish up the RFC/U regarding User:Asgardian. I'm going to put the RFC into place before the end of the year, so it would really be great if you could provide any help you are able to give. What I need most are diffs displaying the disputed behavior. I have some already here, but could use some more. I mean just a list of diffs to put in the first five or so categories I listed there, as I already have more than enough illustrative examples. Anything that you think is edit warring (mutiple similar edits to the same article in the span of a few days), incivility, inaccurate edit summaries, or other similar behavioral problems. List them on the RFCU talk page - just the diffs is all I need, because I want people reading the RFC to be able to draw their own conclusions.

Also, I have come up with a desired outcome and a description of the case based on the comments that have been gathered, and I would appreciate any responses to that on the talk page.

Thanks! BOZ (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

Because you stated your intent to certify the Asgardian RFC/U, I am letting you know that it has begun. If you still wish to certify, you may do so now.

Also, you made statements on the RFC draft talk page pertaining to the case, and I tried to reflect all the major points in my summary. If you feel there is something you wanted to be said that I did not cover sufficiently (or accurately enough to reflect your viewpoint), you may post an "Involved user view" below Asgardian's response section to elaborate. You may wish to copy, whole or in part, any previous statements you have made (with or without diffs or links) into such a new section as you desire. I have included a link to the draft talk page, so that interested parties may view the statements gathered there, if you do not wish to repost them.

Thank you for your participation. BOZ (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Google Hits in AfD's

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

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

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires AFD

The second AFD of Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, resulted in the article being stubbified and the contents moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. You are welcome to make suggestions at the article in the incubator. If your concerns are meet, and you believe the article is ready for mainspace, please sign here [28], or contact User:Spartaz, the closing admin. Thank you.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Pac-Man 2600

I agree with your viewpoints on the Pac-Man 2600 discussion, and added some stuff myself that I gathered from just asking people who were old enough to remember the game. A few things I learned is stunning:

• The "crash" didn't actually happened at all, and what is lied about as the "crash" occurred in 1984 (according to Computer Chronicles/Net Cafe host Stewart Chiefet).

• People, just like you, actually liked the game as a child/teen/twentybopper and had no ill in regards to it.

• Tom Frye never became a millionaire from the sales of the games, because whether it be 12 million or 7 million carts sold, after taxes, he was no longer a millionaire.

• I agree with a statement you made that Wikipedia is administered by shut-in nerds who circle-jerk the articles to their own ends. WND has uncovered that Wikipeida has false information numerous times, and other sites have reported that only like 1,400 distinct IPs have been discovered to editing the articles.

Take care, keep it up. Coffee5binky (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins

You may wish to report to WP:ABUSE and have one of the users over there look into possibly reporting their ISP. You can contact User:Thorncrag if you have any questions on how to report (as I had to recently do with a rather extremely disruptive user). I will have to warn you, however, that British Telecom, the ISP listed there, is not terribly responsive to abuse reports, at least from what I've been told. Hope that helps, –MuZemike 21:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Getting no reaction towards his actions, they all reverted within seconds after making them, and no one amused but himself, perhaps he'll stop. If not, I'll go through the effort and try to get something done. I'm sure they record internet activity of everyone, most ISP spying on customers for advertising purposes. Hmm.. just Googled for that. Apparently they did that as a test run [29] once. Dream Focus 02:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he's also using Sky Broadband as indicated by the IP he's using to "plea for his unblocking" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Plea from a former sockpuppeteer. –MuZemike 00:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I see already he is attacking yet again, erasing my comments in AFD, or changing them. Hits AFDS that I'm not in, so its not just me. Special:Contributions/86.132.130.41 Dream Focus 03:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your desire to report this user, I can certainly file a report; however, you should know that we haven't actually processed any reports in several weeks do the the processing being revamped. Cheers.   Thorncrag  07:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Just hope someone looks into this, and there is a way to stop the person. Even if they get bored and quit for awhile, they'll eventually just come back again and do the same thing. Dream Focus 11:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales

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

Posted to WP:BLPN

WP:BLPN link Proofreader77 ^(interact) 11:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your current batch of nonsense. Try not to drag it out with any long ranting bits of insanity. See the rules for talk pages, and the ones for article pages, and you will see that I violated no rule, while you on the other hand have vandalized someone else's message. Dream Focus 11:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Libelous comments redacted. Take your case to BLPN. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 11:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Many legitimate news sources referred to the crime as rape, and the victim as a child. Wikipedia does not censor, it list what is listed in the legitimate third party media sources. Dream Focus 11:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning for disruptive editing

Take the discussion to BLPN. Libelous comments do not sit on user talk Jimbo Wales until you prove your case. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 12:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not libelous if I'm just repeating what is mentioned in the news media. Dream Focus 12:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI regarding the matter

• Wikipedia:ANI#User:Dream_Focus Proofreader77 ^(interact) 12:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

soapboxing

• Discussion here

At the very least you've been soapboxing. You can't do that here and if it keeps up, you'll be blocked from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• [30] I am curious if you believe what I said as slanderous in any possible way, when it is mentioned in the news media, which is what Wikipedia reports from, and common sense says that is what the guy was convicted of. Why should an editor have the right to censor my post? I know there are rules against editing someone's post. I don't see any rule against repeating something found a very large number of major news sources. Dream Focus 12:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was slanderous. I said it was soapboxing. Aside from that, WP:BLP is straightforward about the overwhelming need for a neutral PoV, the lack of "taking sides": Articles should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves.

Hence, there may be a way to neutrally cite the most severe statements that have been made about a subject, in its article, but spamming such wording onto widely watchlisted talk pages is not the way. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

But I Digress

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

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

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

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

• News items and announcements
• Contest

• Featured editor: Teeninvestor
• Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers

• Want ads
• Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

Avatar: The Game

Hi Dream Focus,

Sorry about this. When I see the word 'forum', right away I assume it's something more like 'OMG AvaTaRR rul3zzzzz d00d!!!1!!eleven!!!' , not the official Ubisoft FAQ. I should've been more thorough. Again, my apologies, and happy editing! --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 21:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So many insisting the Emperor has Clothes.

In this updated fable, you don't want to hear what happened to the little girl who saw the procession and exclaimed. --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

can never get it right myself

but I expect you can ... I noticed that the link at the rescue tag for Dope Stars Inc. brings one to the closed first AfD, not the current ongoing second AfD. tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked on the official page, suggesting how a bot could be made. [31] Someone will probably come up with one to fix it. Dream Focus 06:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You can also apparently just add it in after the Rescue tag behind a | mark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Rescue Dream Focus 06:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

political prisoners in Venezuela

Thanks for your support not to delete the page. I read something in the wikipedia page about wikipedia:
Though the English Wikipedia reached 3 million articles in August 2009, the growth of the edition, in terms of the numbers of articles and of contributors, appeared to have flattened off around Spring 2007.In July 2007, about 2,200 articles were added daily to the encyclopedia; as of August 2009, that average is 1,300. A team led by Ed H Chi at the Palo Alto Research Center speculated that this is due to the increasing exclusiveness of the project.New or occasional editors have significantly higher rates of their edits reverted (removed) than an elite group of regular editors, colloquially known as the "cabal". This could make it more difficult for the project to recruit and retain new contributors, over the long term resulting in stagnation in article creation. Others simply point out that the low-hanging fruit, the obvious articles like China, already exist, and believe that the growth is flattening naturally.Voui (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that there is also a discussion on deleting the category Category:Political repression in Venezuela and the broader category Category:Political repressions by country. See here: [32]. Voui (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Passport articles

Just to let you know that the 'Visa-free travel' blocks in passport articles have not been deleted, but re-constituted as full articles in their own right following extensive discussion at Talk:Passport. For example Visa requirements for North Korean citizens, with a link from North Korean passport. Appreciate your support against the proposed mass deletion of Passport stubs. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Then why not just put redirects? Or just rename all the existing ones? Dream Focus 12:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Many passport articles are not yet very well developed (amongst them those erroneously nominated for deletion). To see how they will hopefully develop in time see US passport, British passport, Irish passport etc RashersTierney (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG

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

User:Dream_Focus#Deletionist_mentality_forced_upon_the_rest

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

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

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

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

COMPUTE!'s Gazette articles

I noticed this AFD discussion where you requested scans of a specific article in the Nov. 1984 issue of COMPUTE!'s Gazette. I have a scanned PDF of this magazine and will post the article somewhere when I get a chance. Was there anything else in old Commodore computer magazines that you needed? *** Crotalus *** 15:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that was it. If the article about him is real, then it proves he is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about him. Dream Focus 18:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the article in question. It discusses Shannon and gives a bit of background on him, but doesn't mention the claim that he was the first author of BBS software for the VIC-20. *** Crotalus *** 14:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Butter's Bottom Bitch (again)

I tried to follow what I believe was agreed on as a compromise on Talk:Butters' Bottom Bitch, but merely get reverted and get these[33] type of messages on my talkpage (which I find somewhat condescending). Could you have another look at the discussion?

Peter ^Isotalo 00:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have commented. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I don't think there is any reasonable doubt of who the character was. Dream Focus 04:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This issue remains unresolved and is now at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Butters' Bottom Bitch without any sign of moving forward. Your assistance in resolving this would be greatly appreciated.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User page

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

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

Rebecca Chambers

They are promoting an aspect of the game. Not only is it OR to say that the game is promoting Rebecca, when it is merely giving a visual demonstration of the character you will be playing as, but it's laughable that you said it's promotional because she's an attractive female. You've basically declared what Capcom was thinking when they put her on a cover of a video game. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean marketing people don't always put someone who is physically attractive on the cover of their product? Do you have a case of this NOT happening? Dream Focus 21:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Continue discussion on article talk page [34] Dream Focus 21:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Oscar van Dillen

An article that you have been involved in editing, Oscar van Dillen, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar van Dillen (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jubilee♫clipman 01:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Black sitcom

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Black sitcom. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black sitcom. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Reyk

He has provided similar derisive and faulty reasons for deletion at another AFD on a singular (well, two-parter) Power Rangers episode (also started by Dwaynewest). Your opinion here would also be of some help.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If there was a previous AFD, you can contact everyone in it to participate again, and it will end the same way. Works every time. Dream Focus 00:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian RFC closed, now at arbitration

Hello,

Thank you for participating in the recent RFC/U regarding Asgardian‎. The RFC has been closed, and the case is now at arbitration. You are neither required nor requested to participate, but you may view the initial statements for the case (please do not edit that page), and you may view the evidence presented and add more evidence if you wish, or simply follow the case. BOZ (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:List of Resident Evil characters. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. In this specific case, you have engaged in votestacking. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I contacted four people who have worked on the article affected, including the guy who created it way back in 2005. No rule has been violated. I am curious how those who support your actions found their way there though, if they had never worked on the article before. Dream Focus 19:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw this notice, which seems appropriate to me. Verbal chat 19:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yandere (2nd nomination). While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. All the editors you notified supported keeping the article the last time. This is a clear violation of WP:CANVASS by contact editors who were already predetermined to keep the article, and is though a form of votestacking. —Farix (t | c) 14:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't canvassing. I just contacted every person, regardless of how they voted, who had participated a few months ago, who hadn't already participated. If they were interested in the subject before, they'd be so again, since its the same damn AFD. Dream Focus 05:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the section of your talk page that has my name on it, I think it's pretty clear that your intention is to rig the outcome of the AfD. Reyk _YO! 10:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No rule was violated. It ends the same way with the same people involved, especially if only a short amount of time has passed. Just as if the only people involved in something are members of a Wikiproject, then it usually ends in delete, they all voting the same way more often than not. The more people who participate, the more likely an article will be saved. Dream Focus 14:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If an article gets deleted, it's not the end of the world. So stop acting like it is. Wikipedia isn't the place for everything, why is this so hard to understand? Guidelines are in place, so this encyclopedia isn't filled with just nonsense, hoaxes, fan trivia and non-notable information. But to the more important matter at hand: you did canvass, just so an article could be saved. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If articles someone might actually enjoy reading, and which people have worked on, get deleted, then the Wikipedia/internet society suffers. And the guidelines don't really determine what is notable or non-notable, that done by policy and consensus in the discussions. Every time an AFD is had, those who participated in it before should be contacted. Otherwise, the previous AFD becomes meaningless, people just keep nominating things until no one is around to notice and protest, and then they get their way. And the more important matter would be that people alter the guideline pages just to have an excuse to delete things they don't like. Dream Focus 08:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

People might find Things I had for breakfast notable, but does that mean an article should be made? I don't think so. What about The best things to do in Atlanta, Georgia? That could appeal to a lot of people as well. However it's still opinion. This site doesn't suffer if it loses garbage articles. This isn't the place for everything, so stop acting like it is. This site isn't an anarchy... period. Guidelines are in place for good reason. If you can't respect them, perhaps you should find somewhere else to edit. Also, you take AFDs too seriously. As I said above: if an article gets deleted, it's not the end of the world. Take some time to go through unsourced and other bad shape articles... then people wouldn't have to AFD them. That would be more helpful than canvassing people. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

RobJ1981, this is a little harsh. It is unfair to expect Dream Focus to suddenly start actually working on articles and improving them; this would be a huge departure for him/her.   pablo_hablo. 20:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't like something, so you want to destroy it. The guidelines can not be taken seriously, because no one voted on them, nor was any decision made by the Wikipedia committee. They were written and edited by a small number of deletionists, to have an excuse to eliminate what they personally don't like. And I have done a lot of work improving articles, even creating several new ones at time. Since both of you are being rude and immature, kindly stay off my talk page. Dream Focus 20:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Google searches for notability

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question regarding merging

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

You have to be more specific. Are you talking about the manga/anime merges or the Ultima merge perhaps? The discussion for the merge of Ultima was at [35] and the majority of people participating said they were against the merge. It never should've happened. Search the discussion for "7 against the mergers, 4 for the merges, and 1 guy for one but against the other two. I think consensus is to not merge anything." I'd also like to point out that there was canvassing at the Wikipedia video game board [36] by a deletionists flat out asking for people to support him in destroying all of the Ultima articles. Read his comments please. An edit and revert war happened, I finally just waiting at the administrator notice board for an administrator to get involved, but none of them responded. Dream Focus 04:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• You can find someone posting about an AFD that ended in merge,but the article was just replaced by a redirect instead. [37] Several editors protested this, saying some information should be merged over, as was consensus. If you look at the history of the article it was suppose to be merged to, you can see the first of many reverts by various editors was done at 07:41, 6 February 2009 by Kintetsubuffalo[38]. It went to RFC as I recall, and consensus was to merge information. After a few weeks, that information was deleted again by the same stubborn deletionist. The discussion was on the talk page [39]. It then went to Wikiquette board [40] but was closed after some arguing there, with the message to send it to another board, which I recall we did. Dream Focus 04:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Kharsag Epics

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

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

Close

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

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

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

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

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

I requested a bot to do something similar, listing every time someone nominated something for deletion, and how many times it ended in keep, delete, etc. [41] I'm not sure if the guy is still working on it, or not. Dream Focus 03:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

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

See the dicussion

Its not the proper template see discussion [42] Dwanyewest (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal regarding List of Resident Evil characters

I've made a proposal that may involve deleting a significant percentage of the list of Resident Evil characters. Earlier you expressed a desire to be notified of any such proposals; if you think anyone else should be notified, please feel free to do so. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. I honestly stopped looking at that page when the matter was pretty much dead and A Nobody hit. I'll admit though the list needs heavy maintenance, there's a lot of material there for one-shot characters that could be discussed in briefer details (the dead meat members of the S.T.A.R.S. team), though in the same stroke Rebecca seemingly lost her reception during the re-merging of her article which while brief was a valid start. I'll take a look at it later, see if a middle ground can be reached...work's been on my back lately.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Unxlear

Greeting Dream Focus! I am curious of your thoughts on the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xlear Nasal Spray. !Vote-wise, the close would have been 'no consensus', yet I'm not seeing why the keep !votes were disregarded as such (my searches led me to believe that it passed WP:GNG). Do you think it's something worth contacting User:Jayjg about? Best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Most closing administrators go through a lot of AFDs at a time, and don't waste time looking deeper than they have to. Some said notable, some said not, so there was no clear consensus one way or another. So no consensus was the proper thing to do, the article thus kept. Dream Focus 04:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, so would you recommend I contact Jayjg about it / bring it to deletion review? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. Remember to contact everyone who participated in the AFD about it. Dream Focus 12:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Will do! I'm currently discussing another matter with the editor, but will approach him on it as soon as the first is resolved. Thanks for your thoughts and happy Easter!! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, my original conversation with Jay still has not ended, but I've mentioned the Xlear issue to him as well. You're welcome to comment, but my guess is that it'll just lead to deletion review, as we said above. Just letting you know that I haven't forgotten, cheers! :) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Your comment has appeared in the thread below the one I think it was intended for. I'd move it up but thought if you did you would know where in the discussion you would want it placed. SGGH ^ping! 19:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. There was an edit conflict when I tried to post it, and I ended up trying again and putting it in the wrong area. I have corrected it. Dream Focus 19:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

please remove any comments about my life outside of wikipedia, thank you. Okip 19:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought it added to your case. Dream Focus 19:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much. :) Okip 19:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

thoughts

Since you have a very expansive user page discussing this issue, as I wrote on ANI, what do you think?

Too many editors find that deletion "helps" articles, and are too willing to take credit for an article being improved after it is up for deletion, when, in fact that deletion discussion shows a failure to communicate and reach a more amicable, and less disruptive solution. This flawed attitude is no accident, in the BLP madness debate, Jimmy Wales praised editors who deleted several hundred articles out of process. AFDs have probably gotten more cordial, not because the cordiality has improved, it is because those who do not share this prevalent view have left or have been driven off. This is like the September 11th edit warriors taking credit for the peaceful way in which September 11th articles are now, the reason is because arbitration made a content decision, allowing anti-conspiracy theory editors, many who were admins, block and silence the opposing side. Okip 12:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and support. you will be happy to know that I accepted jclemens offer to help and offer advice. :) I would like to think that A Nobody could have avoided his ban if he would have done the same. Okip 23:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Banned? Where did that happen at? Dream Focus 07:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied to your post in my TalkPage

Thank you for your input in my talk page, and I have replied to your post in my talk page. If you have time, please take a look. Thx:)

PS: Please excuse my multiple edits, messed up some of the markup and formatting come out wrong. Scchan (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources on Tomato

Hi Dream Focus. I'm afraid I've got to take issue with one of the sources you cited in Tomato, specifically this article from the Chester Progressive. Given how well it fits with a lot of the Wikipedia article, I strongly suspect that the writer may have been using Wikipedia in the first place (it wouldn't be the first time local media has been lazy). Obviously we can't cite something that used Wikipedia in the first place. For now, I've marked it as possibly not being a WP:Reliable Source, but do you think you could find a better source to back it up? Thomas Kluyver (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Would a printed newspaper not check its facts first? And it was published in 2008. Was the information in the article at that time? I'll check the article's history and see. Google news search says that is a reliable source for news. Dream Focus 15:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope. You are wrong. The Wikipedia article at the time it was printed [43] did not mention the tomato coming from a yellow fruit at all, nor had anything about lead in it until I added that fact from the newspaper source. That proves it didn't come first from Wikipedia. The third thing I used them for a reference for is the largest tomato plant ever, that a record found anywhere such records are kept, the information not likely to have been copied from the Wikipedia. Dream Focus 15:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I agree, it couldn't have taken all of the facts from Wikipedia, but it could still have had some. I think it's also relied on The Tomato in America, which is referenced in the Wikipedia article, hence the similarity. Newspapers should check facts, but they don't always, and little local papers might be less stringent than major news sources. I don't have a citation, but I know papers have copied incorrect info from Wikipedia before. Also, a 'trivia' type page like this is less reliable than a story about the fact in question. I'll see if I can use the Tomato in America instead for some of those claims, but it doesn't have the heaviest tomato record. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

All the references to it, did not come from Wikipedia first, that all that matters. And Wikipedia is verifiable, not truth. That's one of the founding policies/principles. And what sort of book about tomatoes wouldn't mention what the largest one on record was? The department of agriculture's website probably has that information, they keeping track of things like this. Anyway, please remove your unreliable source tags, unless you have a legitimate reason for doubting that information provided, and the credibility of this particular newspaper. Dream Focus 04:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad source @ FarmVille

Hey Dream. In a recent edit to the article FarmVille, you added some criticism about the game. However, the information was not true. The reference you added as the source of information was a NewsBiscuit article; NewsBiscuit, however, is a satirical news website where all its content is basically comedy and entertainment and not a real source of info. It has since been removed by an anon. editor. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry about that. I was looking up information about protest about genetically engineered crops, and I came upon it. Dream Focus 04:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion: Comparison between roman and han empires

Hello. You are invited to take part in the deletion discussion on the redirect Comparison between roman and han empires. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeat AfD

Please see this--Fiskeharrison (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I spent a moment clicking the Google news search at the top of the AFD, and found four notable news sources discussing the guy's accomplishments. This is the third time someone tried to delete the article, despite the news coverage. Dream Focus 19:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Transwiki script request

Hi. I did some work on your request WP:Bot requests/Archive 34#help fixing red links on transwiki articles. Is it likely for a redlink to be imported at a later date? If so, I could write a template that automatically switches back to a local link once the page exists.

Could you check if creating a Wikia account is okay with A Nobody? Debugging will be much easier if I can work on the desired wiki. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can register on a Wikia. Once you log in to any Wikia, you are logged in to all of them. Anyone can start a Wikia for almost anything they want. I doubt A Nobody or others would object to this. You can even copy a page to your user or talk page on the Wikia, and test it out t here to see if it works first. Dream Focus 04:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think if the link is red, it normally stays that way. If it was relevant to the Wikia, it'd be copied over. If its added later on, it can be changed quite easily, so I don't see that as a problem. With the list wikia, its nothing but list, there no reason why anything would exist there. Its just list linking to items back on the main Wikipedia. Dream Focus 04:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Flatscan (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Flatscan, how goes life :) Okip 07:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Okip. When I have time, I'm practicing my JavaScript by working on small projects. Flatscan (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I finished writing the script. This is an example. I also left a note at wikia:list:User talk:Dream Focus#Need a bot for this. Flatscan (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks. I'm make sure everyone over there in list world knows about it. There should be a place on the main wikia site to announce scripts, and even here on the Wikipedia, wherever the export page is at, for transwiki'ing things, a note about it would be useful. Dream Focus 06:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

thanks for your comments :) Okip 07:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI comment

I hope I don't regret this, but can you explain to me where you are getting the idea that I'm a "deletionist who argue with Okip and others of the Rescue squadron constantly, in large numbers of AFD discussions, trying to delete what we try to keep"? Even Okip said he had never met me before. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw Bali ultimate there, and was thinking of him. He does in fact do things just to irritate ARS members, every chance he gets. The only article he ever tagged for Rescue, was one about people having sex with animals who were also into animal rights. I and everyone else participating said delete to that article, it obvious a prank, as evident by the way it was done. He does stuff like that, then acts all innocent. AniMate is also one that argues at times, although not in the immature way that Bali ultimate does. And usually you see others appearing to take a shot at Okip and others whenever their names come up, so I'm sure they'll be around. I have no idea who you are though, so I was referring to you. Dream Focus 03:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I should've broken my statement into two paragraphs, since only the first part is directed at you. You seem to have gotten emotional and misused your tools for something which was not a valid reason to use them. Dream Focus 03:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
• Notice the many times banned and admitted sock puppet and troublemaker Jack Merridew posted there. His comments are amusing to himself, he calling to ban someone for doing something he has done himself repeatedly, only far worse. He brags on his user page about being the most successful sock puppet ever. I never understood how he kept getting unblocked time and again. Dream Focus 03:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

? Jack Merridew posted there once. One (1) time, not "many times".   pablo_hablo. 08:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Read it again. He was many times banned. I never said he posted many times, only he was banned many times. Dream Focus 08:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I read it as "Notice the many times (that) banned ..." rather than "Notice (that) the many-times banned ... "   pablo_hablo. 09:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If you admittedly have the wrong person, the appropriate thing to do is to strike out the comment and correct it. I honestly don't care but it does may weaken your argument otherwise. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As to who chooses to comment, Okip's similar habit of criticizing everyone was something I questioned and eventually it does become tired. You may have a point, you may not, but do you really think the best argument is to say "look at the people who support this, so this must be a terrible idea"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I was pointing out that they weren't sincere in what they were saying, they just out to get the guy. Many people don't comment if a lot of people have already stated they support the opposite. Also those who don't know the situation may be influenced by what others are saying. And if a judgment is made, then whoever makes that final decision, should realize that many supporting it are just doing so for personal reasons. Dream Focus 06:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Since it bothers you, I went ahead and clarified it here: [44]. Everyone's feelings are always valid. You should never hesitate to say what is on your mind. Dream Focus 06:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Zion Covenant Series

Hi, the totals are right, because if you look at the last two votes on the AfD, even though they've got "Keep" in bold they both say that this only refers to the series article and that the individual books should be merged into it. I should've made this clearer in my close, so I've re-written it. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake. Should've read the last one through, instead of just searching for the word "merge". Sorry. Dream Focus 06:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's gone

I'm kind of annoyed that the work I did for the NINA album was all for naught. I really didn't want to have it relisted, but they would have just kept trying to redirect it if I didn't and then somehow gotten me into a 3RR situation. Silverseren^C 06:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Note quite done. Check out his comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kww_4 right after mine. Just search for my name, to find the right spot. Since you are involved in this, he claiming you agreed to relist it, without stating the reason why, despite you mentioning your reason in the AFD discussion, I think you might want to respond to that. Dream Focus 06:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you think we should take the situation to WP:DRV? And I left a reply at his RFA. Silverseren^C 07:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would matter now. Perhaps if done before it closed again. AFD are always done by the consensus of whatever random group of people find their way there, and the opinions of the closing administrator. Even if an article survives, the same people usually just nominate it for deletion months later, or one of their friends does. I'm glad to see another reasonable minded editor like myself participating in so many AFDs. Too bad there aren't more of us out there. Most of the articles we participate in do get saved though, so overall we've done some good. Dream Focus 07:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

hi

wanted to talk about something but i feel uncomfortable scrolling down to this page. you think you can archive some of it???Bread Ninja (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

On tagging but not posting

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

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

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

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

Kharsag

Hello again! I just thought I'd mention that Kharsag is now being nominated for deletion (and rescue). I would very much appreciate your thoughts and vote on the matter in it's discussion page. Thanks. Paul Bedson (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply

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

RE: Boba Phat at AFD again

Thanks; I already commented. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 11:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Me too. I have to laugh at how some of the !votes are, in substance, "let's hope we get more deletion-minded voters this time"--Milowent (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hard to keep track. There were 18 people I contacted, and one I didn't because I noticed he got a message from a bot already. Dream Focus 14:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

Hello. Several articles are listed for peer review, but have not yet received one. Do you mind participating in one of them, like Ghost Adventures? serioushat 08:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer reviews are for the good article ratings only, correct? I never pay attention to those things, and I doubt most people notice them at all. Only people who are interested in the subject should ever be involved in that. Otherwise you have people who don't read things through, and instead of judging the article on content, what information was included and how well was it explained to those interested in the subject, they instead just want it to look a certain way, usually short as possible with lots of quotes from people in the news media, and a thousand and one citations few if any will ever bother reading. Dream Focus 20:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks anyway for trying to rescue an episode list that I created last December from deletion; I appreciate it. ;) serioushat 00:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'd try to save them all if I had the time. You might want to check out http://ghostadventures.wikia.com/wiki/Ghost_Adventures_Wiki or http://list.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page for places to restore the list. Some people just liking reading through list of everything, thus the list wikia exist, always something new to learn about various shows, or whatnot, and there is a wikia for the show Ghost Adventures, although its a young one someone just started in February of this year, so not a lot of information on it yet. Dream Focus 01:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of OS-tan

Hello Dream Focus, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created on {{{5}}}, OS-tan, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:203.82.94.100 (note: page has no mainspace links, and {{{7}}} edits). This has been done because the page is an almost identical copy of a page deleted via a deletion discussion (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:203.82.94.100. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of 203.82.94.100 (talk · contribs) 12:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Muir Skate Longboard Shop

How do I go about rallying some troops for the [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muir_Skate_Longboard_Shop|Muir Skate Rescue]? More jerks are saying to delete it and although I made a great point at the bottom of the page, I'm worried we won't get enough keep votes. PÆonU (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That isn't allowed under the canvassing rules. You can post in any wikiproject dedicated to the topic, or contact everyone who participated in a previous AFD, but that's about it. And it isn't a vote... well, actually it usually closes according to whoever has the most votes, but not always. If enough people believe the coverage and whatnot prove its notable, it'll end in no consensus. Dream Focus 20:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing? I was asking if there was a way to get some attention from other rescue squad member. Really, that's considered canvassing? It's about as harmless as adding a rescue tag! PÆonU (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, I blocked the IP vandal you reported, but I'd suggest posting at WP:RFPP if you want any article semi-protecting. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 21:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Have done so. Dream Focus 21:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dream Focus. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 11.
Message added 05:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 05:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Iceland–Mexico relations

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

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

Re: Post on Jimbo's talk page

A few bits of information:

1. Re "Why is it we don't show any pictures of Mohammad", of course we have pictures of Mohammad, even though complaints about it come by the truckload. There are a huge amount of those pictures, some of them quite offensive to some people.
2. Where Wikipedia is censored by law, it is by the law of where the servers are located, and that's because there isn't any other choice.
3. Apart from where required legally, Wikipedia is not censored. At all. Period.
4. Sending messages to Jimbo's talk page won't do anything to this issue. Decisions on policy are made by the community, not by him.

--Yair rand (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

He made the decision recently to eliminate certain images, not the community. And I'm asking his opinion, because I'm curious of it. This is all related to his recent actions. There are still some images out there which should be eliminated. Dream Focus 02:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You should know, though, that he recently forfeited his right to delete images, along with quite a few other rights, and it looks like the previous deletions are going to be undone. --Yair rand (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Shapero

Would this be worth a DRV do you think? Alzarian16 (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes. It seems to me that the closing admin imposed their own opinion on the result, which was clearly not supported by consensus. The one strong Delete vote was changed to Keep, so there was little of a Delete argument left. Link me to the DRV when you get it set up. Silverseren^C 10:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Here we go: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 15. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I just commented, after searching the news and finding some decent results from reliable news sources. [45] Too bad I didn't notice that before hand. Had I realized the result I had found and mentioned was a college newspaper, I would've looked harder, instead of assuming I had found enough proof of notability then. Dream Focus 22:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

About VG lists from infobox data bot request

Hey! About this bot request — has anyone replied and/or attempted to do this? Sound like a nice idea. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  12:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately no replies. Dream Focus 13:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind if I ever get that bored. Thanks! —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  18:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Citing Google hits

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

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

See how easy that was? [46] You could've easily just read through the summaries, looking at anything published after the year 2000 to see what was him. I can not link to the articles themselves, since all newspapers seem to require people to pay to read the full article these days, and what you end up with is less than what you can read in the Google search summary usually anyway. Dream Focus 03:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Contacting previous editors of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire

To answer your questions from my talk page:

1. There was not enough feedback. When I started a few weeks ago, there was no discussion for either articles. Narthring contacted me, but only to put in a standard welcome to Wikipedia. I reached out to Reyk for advice.
2. I felt it was a matter of courtesy to let everybody who had edited the articles know of my intention to massively overhaul the articles. You found out because I put notices in the WikiProjects that had said the articles were covered by the projects.
3. It won't be just the external links.
4. Yes, I intend to work on the whole article. However, I first want to get opinions. For example, I like the idea of merging the two articles, but I want to make sure there is no dissent. If the two articles are to be merged, the logical first step is to merge the two articles and then work on the combined article. It doesn't make sense to work on the two articles in parallel and then combine them. I hope that answers all of your questions.Vyeh (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I found out because you posted on the talk page of someone I had on my watch list, then I checked your contributions and found you did that to a large number of people, some of which posted on your talk page they didn't want to be bothered. If you believe the article's should be changed, post on the talk page exactly all of what you want to be done. There is no possible reason to merge two articles which have enough valid content to fill themselves. But we'll discuss that over there. Dream Focus 17:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Some other editor (DustFormWords) have deleted the non-official external links. I have outlined the history in the talk page of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. I may not have liked the non-official external links, but I did not put a notice on the External links/Noticeboard (it was JohnnyMrNinja who did so). Vyeh (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

caution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note

A file which you previously commented on has been nominated for deletion [47] – ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 08:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Featherlite Trailers

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

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

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

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

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

Out of context. Read the previous comments by others in the AFD. Also, read the article. I would hope whoever closes it looks over it briefly. To clarify my position, I quoted what part of the article should convince everyone, [48]. Honestly now. It should be common sense. A trailer company is notable if the most notable racing organization in the world uses it! Dream Focus 23:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. Even though you opposed me I respect your opinion. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Image

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

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

!Vote

Just an FYI that an editor has copy and pasted your !vote from one AFD to another. WP:Articles for deletion/Travis Gordon Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a strange thing I haven't seen before. But I guess the AFDs are the same. If someone's work is notable, then they are notable. Dream Focus 21:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

traveled/travelled

Please note that "traveled" and "travelled" are both correct spellings. Per WP:ENGVAR, please do not change varieties of English (as you did at Ernest Hemingway) without discussion. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I just saw what Firefox said about spelling(incorrectly spelled words unlined in red) and changed it. Didn't realize either way was fine. No big deal. Dream Focus 02:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If he was an American writer, then shouldn't the American spelling be used? [49] Dream Focus 02:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but at the same time the article evolved using the British spelling. So, perhaps it is best to bring it up on the talk page before changing. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:Incivility

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

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

User:Dream Focus/RE-TAKE

Black Kite (t) (c) 06:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Good luck on the restoration; I am rooting for you, and I look forward to seeing the article reintroduced to the main space in the future. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just wanted to import it to the Manga Wiki which I recently adopted. http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Neon_Genesis_Evangelion_RE-TAKE Working on it over there now. Unless it somehow gets mentioned in a publication somewhere, and very few places bother mentioning any manga at all, let alone a fanmade one, I doubt it'll be able to survive on the current Wikipedia. Dream Focus 08:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Well at least you managed to find a good home for the material then. Can't say I blame the decision, Wikipedia just isn't a happy place for fiction-based information anymore. All the same though, I hope it works out for both you and the manga over at the new place! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

John Pontolillo

thank you very much for your helpful work on the article. Melanesian obsession (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Saving the battletech articles by transwiking them to the battletech wiki

How about this one? The last time I looked at it, it seemed more active. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose fans of the series know what sarna is. Two wikis for the same thing? The least popular one should be turned into a redirect. They do that sometimes, especially if the other one isn't active. Dream Focus 08:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Should. Be bold, go to wikia and redirect it to sarna :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Foot odor

I have proposed that Smelly socks be merged to Foot odor. Since you contributed to the recent AfD on Smelly socks, you might be interested in participating in the discussion to merge at Talk:Foot odor#Merger proposal. SnottyWong ^express 05:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Pop music and AfDs

Hi. Concerning your tagging of a sentence on Pop music. The article had some, shall we say, difficult edits a little while back and I need to go back to the sources when I have time and check that they actually say what is indicated. I think the source (note 3 I assume) indicates that pop, in the modern sense dates from the 50s/60s, but for your AfD debates you might find Traditional pop music useful. You may, of course be aware of it already. In short, the term pop can be used for music before 1967. Hope this helps.--SabreBD (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Avatar characters

I created the articles Ozai (Avatar: The Last Airbender) and Momo (Avatar: The Last Airbender) but I have a feeling they won't stay because a certain editor says their terrible. He made them a merge but I reverted it. But I am pretty sure that won't be the end of it. I just ask you to help out in any way possible if you can to save these articles. Maybe put them in your watchlist. They're not perfect but they aren't terrible. Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to keep anything these days, you have to find some mention of the character in Google news archive search. [50] I searched for "Avatar" "the last airbender" and then the name of the character. If you look through that and find any details about the character, instead of just mentioning a name in a sentence or two, then you'll be able to save it. Otherwise, its a futile effort. Sorry. The Wikipedia has changed, the evil deletionists lunatics getting their way. You can find a wikia suited for it though. http://avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Avatar_Wiki More than two thousand articles there, dedicated to every character and aspect of the series. The wikia is constantly growing in popularity, over 30 million hits a month. Anything you are interested in, you can find a wikia for, or if not you can create a new one quite easily. Dream Focus 16:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. And yeah I know about the Avatar Wikia. I just thought they deserved to be in Wikipedia too. What was I thinking?!?! Anyways I just put the consensus on whether or not it should be merged in the List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters in the discussion page of that article if you want to vote. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And now Ozai is being nominated for deletion. I should have just merged it a long time ago. You are welcome to put the rescue tag on it though. Maybe that will help. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I did not previously know about Manga Wiki. Thank you for showing its existence and transfering the Nana to Kaouru article. I will definetly become a contributor to Manga Wiki now. Lord Metroid (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

list

Please consider adding Justine Joli to that list that is being considered for AFD. According to the Wikipedia article (along with a citation), she very much qualifies. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You can add it yourself. Just click edit, and post the name in a link. Simple. Dream Focus 17:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to edit porn articles. Sorry. Maybe someone else is willing? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

But you created the article in the first place! It's already in your contribution history.--BelovedFreak 17:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL! That is funny. [51] Dream Focus 18:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP Prods

Hi Dream Focus,

I've noticed your edits to Marika Hayashi, and I wanted to make sure you understand the new BLP PROD process. Basically, any article on a living person created after March 18, 2010 must have sources or it will be deleted. This has nothing to do with the notability of the subject. Even if the person is clearly notable and the article says why the person is notable, it can and likely will still be tagged with a BLP PROD if it doesn't have sources. Also, a BLP PROD doesn't necessarily mean that the person who added the tag actually wants the article to be deleted, but instead is just saying that policy requires it to be deleted if no sources are added within 10 days. If you already understood the process then I'm sorry for bothering you with this, but it looked from your edit summaries on Marika Hayashi that you thought the BLP prod was questioning her notability when it actually wasn't. Calathan (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was only if there is anything that might be considered negative in any possible way. That is why they argued for that. The small amount of information about her, can not possibly cause her harm or offend anyone at all. So the prod is rather ridiculous. Anyway, I went ahead and took a few seconds to check her official website, and it confirmed the information in that one paragraph about her, there now a reference for it. People should always do at least a brief search on someone's official website, before trying to delete their article like that. Dream Focus 01:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the primary source, a friend to scholars everywhere. If you're going to do research you should look for what other sources are saying, not what she chooses to say about herself via her own website.  pablo 08:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You should actually read the article before commenting on it. The only thing referenced to her site is the bit about her being part of the Yen member theater group, from Kanagawa Prefecture. If there is absolutely no possible reason to doubt the information from the primary source is real, then no reason not to link directly to it. Dream Focus 08:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct. But other sources are better.  pablo 10:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would they be better? Whichever is most likely to be accurate, is the best one to use, and if more than one source is accurate, then just link to the primary source. That's where the other sources most likely got it from anyway. Do you think they'd waste time calling up this group and ask for conformation, or just trust the official website of the person? Dream Focus 11:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

They are just generally more useful in an encyclopaedia, for obvious reasons. In this case its somewhat irrelevant, there just really isn't a lot to say about this woman.  pablo 11:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The primary source is a reliable source in this case, and in many other cases. Dream Focus 11:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

More Transformers articles nominated for deletion by the Deletion police

These just got nominated:

• Poison Bite
• Scattor
• Bad Boy (Gobots)
• Coby Hansen
• Dirt Rocket

Please add your opinion to the pages if you want. Mathewignash (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You aren't allowed to post around like that, there a rule about canvassing. Doesn't matter in this case though, since if its tagged with a rescue template, I'll notice it, plus its listed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Transformers#Articles_for_deletion Dream Focus 18:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, still learning. These deletion waves are coming fast and hard and confusing me. Is there a good central place to list delete proposed articles? Often times articles I would try to save are deleted simply because I don't know they are being deleted. I'm sure others feel the same way. What is the PROPER way to be informed? Mathewignash (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The best way I know of really is just to watchlist the Wikiproject page for listing deletions, and see what was added on each edit. --Gwern (contribs) 19:19 29 August 2010 (GMT)

Well it seems that J Milburn just deleted about 20+ Transformers articles that had notes saying they may lack notability. There wasn't even any talk on the matter. He just posted they may not be notable, then deleted them a while later. Can anything be done about this? Mathewignash (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Most Wikiprojects have a place to list them, thus getting noticed. The Transformers wikiproject doesn't have a special page like that. There is a page that list all television shows up for deletion, and one for webcomics, anime and manga, etc. Did he delete ones that were nominated for deletion, or proded for at least a week, or did he just go off on his own without following proper procedures? Which articles were they? Link me to one. Dream Focus 21:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

What J Milburn did, as can be seen from his contributions, is redirect a number of Transformer related articles to List of Maximals. He has had the notability tag on them from around the 15th, though i'm not sure what proper procedure is in regards to redirecting articles without discussion. Silverseren^C 21:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

He nominated some others for deletion, voted delete in some discussions, and then with a lot of them just replaced them with a redirect avoiding the AFD process entirely. He tags them two weeks ago with a notability tag which most everyone ignores, that no excuse to eliminate things. If you don't believe they should be redirects, just undo it, and if he disagrees still he can send it to AFD. I honestly don't believe we have a chance of saving these articles. This is just like how all the He-Man articles for characters and vehicles got destroyed, as well various video game characters, and dozens of other things. They usually just merge them into a list article, and then go and "trim" it later on, destroying all the information anyway. Dream Focus 21:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to talk about me, notify me. If you have an issue with my edits, contact me. Scheming about mass reversions and talking about how evil I am behind my back is not cool. DreamFocus, if people ignore the notability tag, I don't think they can really be surprised when someone, y'know, assumes that the subject isn't notable. J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, AGF, good sir. I only popped in here in the first place to inform Dream Focus about what articles he needed to look at, just because I noticed the question on my watchlist. I'm not even involved in this whole Transformers issue. I'm content in sticking with my wolves. Silverseren^C 21:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Did I call you evil? I was thinking more of misguided, but I didn't actually say that. And when I see a tag like that, I just assume its just someone who doesn't like that sort of article, just making their rounds, tagging hundreds of articles a day without ever reading any of them. That's usually what sorts go around doing mass tagging. Dream Focus 22:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of exactly what kind of negative thing I am, notifying me would have been polite... J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Polite would be not mindlessly trying to destroy articles, which harm nothing by their existence, and bring people to Wikipedia to read things they are interested in. What do you actually think you are gaining by destroying someone else's work? Dream Focus 22:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Not calling other discussions "scheming" and "talking behind my back" would also be polite. But hey. Silverseren^C 22:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Bomb shelter

Hi, now that Bomb shelter is a disambiguation page, could you help clean up the articles that now point incorrectly to the disambig per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 22:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It previously redirected to air raid shelters, despite the fact that most Americans use the term bomb shelter for fallout shelters. Now its a disambiguate page. Whatever links there, can link to whichever type of shelter they are referring to. But yeah, I'll help with that. Dream Focus 22:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Going through them in order. The link at Seymour_Cray for bomb shelter, is about preparing for nuclear fallout, not planes flying over and dropping bombs which hasn't happened since World War 2, and isn't likely to ever happen again. So the old redirect was in error. Since fallout shelters are commonly called bomb shelters, and I honestly never heard anyone call them fallout shelters before, I'm leaving it. Dream Focus 22:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• 1991 uses bomb shelter to describe a blast shelter. But if the media uses the term bomb shelter, that'll be used instead. A bomb shelter can be many different things. Dream Focus 22:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Ghostbusters refers to a bomb shelter, which could be either a blast shelter or a fallout shelter, or even both. The Navy practices shelling that area apparently. Oh well. All the links that previously went incorrectly to air raid shelter are fixed now, people able to look at the disambiguate page and figure out where to go from there. I don't really know what to change things to. I'll just leave it like this and let people figure it out on their own. Dream Focus 22:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• So you haven't fixed any of the links at all? Well, that's your prerogative. But if you do choose to do any fixing navigation popups makes the job easier (but you have to set the flag popupFixDabs to true). Cheers, --JaGa^talk 20:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no way to fix it if it could link to any of several articles. Best to just leave them linking to the disambiguate page. Dream Focus 08:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It is not a good solution to have permanent disambig links hanging from article space. I have made bomb shelter into a proto article on the general article it covers, since it is not properly a disambig page. None of the linked titles including the phrase "bomb shelter", and there being nothing outside of a single class of sub-types to a general type, as opposed to, for example, a band or an album called 'Bomb Shelter'. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Experiment

Since you seem to be interested in the topic, I started a kind of experiment which may give articles mass-deleted on the same topic a fighting chance in the future. I recommend you change your !vote in every article listed there to Merge as decided by centralized discussion. —CodeHydro 14:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge is the same as deletion. 90% or more of the information would be lost. And I suggest you stop wasting time with such nonsense. People mass nominated articles for deletion at once all the time, it usually failing, so they then renominate them individually. And don't ask people to change votes on their talk page. That's rude. The articles should all be kept as they have been for years now, not eliminated by some haters who try to change the rules just to get their way and destroy what made Wikipedia great in the first page. Dream Focus 14:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, I admit it was poorly thought out. Didn't mean to canvass. I simply intended to point out that "decide by centralized discussion" (without merge) could be an option, but was sloppy in implementing it. I meant merge discussion... sigh.. It's a new idea, so give me a break. —CodeHydro 14:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think I may withdraw my nomination for centralize soon, but you may be interesting in a new policy proposal I'm making called WP:AFDPP. Sorry once again for making a mess of things earlier. —CodeHydro 19:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• No problems here. But it won't work. You see, most deletionists just hate certain types of things they don't believe should be on Wikipedia, and will use every excuse to eliminate them. Some honestly believe in following the suggested notability guidelines, but most just use them as an excuse to get what they want. Postponing something won't matter at all. If a quick Google news and Google books search doesn't find coverage, then most aren't willing to look farther, it too much of a bother. Dream Focus 22:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Transformers AfDs

They don't need to be listed there, as they are already listed at Category:AfD debates (Fiction and the arts). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Rescue

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It closed very quickly. Next time just tag it for rescue, don't go around telling everyone about it. That'll get enough attention. Honest mistake though, I'm sure. Dream Focus 18:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

fermented dairy foods

Fermented dairy comestible‎ and Fermented milk products - didn't comment on the merge tag because I didn't notice it. (And no discussion started on the discussion page). Probably worth merging. FiveRings (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't notice the merge tag up there for 11 months, but did notice me removing the tag just now? That seems a bit odd. Its had other edits since then, so if it was on your watch list you should've noticed before. Feel free to add a merge tag, and then click the link that appears to start an actual discussion for it if you want. Dream Focus 14:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dream Focus. You have new messages at Talk:Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.
Message added 12:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nolelover 12:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Dream_Focus#Another_typical_day_for_the_Rescue_Squadron

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

Freedom of speech

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

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

[52]

It's called the Wikimedia Foundation. There is no such thing as the "Wikipedia foundation". :) --Yair rand (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

New message

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

RE: Peter David

Sorry for the delay. My reply is here. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

The deletion discussion is over, you live to fight another day. But thank you for your encouragement, you were the only user that has made a positive remark on my user page. My only reason for getting involved in the discussion in the first place. And it seems to have pissed off a certain user. I never thought that would be a good thing. So I am retiring from Wikipedia. But leaving the fairy ring on my talkpage. Goodbye and thank you again. --JHvW (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If you ever decide to stop by and edit, the rescue squadron can always use more reasonable minded people to participate. [53] And if you have an interest in any video game series, television show, or anything at all, you can always find it on the wikia. Here is one I made for Taylor Swift. If you can think of something no one has made a wiki before for, you can start it yourself, and be in total control of content, preventing any problems. Dream Focus 11:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Be careful of mushrooms they tend to grow in circles! 8-) --JHvW (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The ARS is doing good work, actually promoting the Wikipedia philosophy and are not, as some suggest, a club of inclusionists (a term I do not care for anyway). The recent AfD debate about Louis and the Nazis is a typical example. Somebody should really do something about that article. Although the documentary was probably made around 2003 it has very important things to say about nationalism and white supremacy in the United States. Because I live in Europe, maybe we are used to that sort of journalism (which in my opinion is balanced and fair) and just about everybody in the documentary is in Wikipedia. That by itself should make an article about the documentary notable enough. But if you or I were to argue that, we would get into trouble. So I have retired which does not mean I am not watching. If you ever feel that you or the ARS need help or advice (you will not always like it), feel free to contact me. Now I am going to try to "kick the habit" which will not be easy after seven years. Although I still feel that Wikipedia is a good project, I have exhausted my purpose. By the way, there is an excellent parody of Wikipedia on the College Humour Channel. Have you seen it? --JHvW (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Communicating with people off-wikipedia is against the rules, except for the mad deletionist empire at WikiReview, where disgruntled editors talk trash about people they don't like, and encourage everyone to go after them. For some reason they are immune to the rule, but no one else is allowed to do it, by email or forum. I found the College Humor thing [54]. Funny. Concerning that documentary, I watched the one where he was in Philadelphia showing abusive and idiotic police officers abusing people while drugs and murder were out of control. That was interesting. Dream Focus 22:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi Dream Focus! I added a RfC to the article Brazil and weapons of mass destruction due to constant reverts. Could you take a look and leave your input here? Thanks! Limongi (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Archive

Hi, DreamFocus, I was wondering if you could please archive your talk page. It's getting a little difficult for me to open your talk page with my browser. Thank you. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I need to get around to doing that again I suppose. Dream Focus 17:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Casey and Andy

I think your link in the AfD is to a review about a different comic. You might want to go back and check... Hobit (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. I fixed it. I now link to an actual review of it which I had found and read before, but hadn't linked to. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Dream Focus 05:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for fixing it. Hobit (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikia

Saw your comment on Jimbo's talk page about wikia. Remember of course you can get emails there from new talk page comments so even if JW doesn't regularly visit it he'd probably know if someone posted a talk page comment if he set it up. Nil Einne (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ghostofnemo_(2nd_nomination)

Dream, I saw this debate and thought of your recent experience, Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ghostofnemo_(2nd_nomination). Its a different group of editors involved, but same basic debate, as far as I can tell.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that is likely to keep on happening. Them blanking his page is clearly vandalism. Dream Focus 15:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge of List of magical negro archetypes in fiction into Magical negro

Hi,

As you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of magical negro archetypes in fiction, I am notifying you of the proposed merger. Please comment at Talk:Magical negro#Proposing a merger.

Also, please consider adding a link to your talk page to your signature.

Thank you, Bigger digger (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The code for it wouldn't fit. Used all my space to make the letters different colors. Dream Focus 20:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think you might have your signature priorities a bit mixed up, but hey ho, never mind! Bigger digger (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong.

The discussion did actually end. An administrator changed the "result" to off. Also, I did in fact get notified that the discussion was over. Finally, we did actually solve this problem. We decided to keep the page. So in conclusion, the deletion IS over. Have a Nice Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnd900 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I asked the administrator. Either he forgot to close it properly, or you made a mistake. [55] He'll sort it out. Dream Focus 03:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The AFD is still open. The AFD tag should not be removed from the article until it's closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Clear heels

Just for laughs, go read the sources that Colonel Warden has put up. Can you really say that those sources discuss the subject in "significant detail?"  Ravenswing  14:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I read through the summaries that appeared from a Google news search. That's ample coverage to convince me. Do you expect more than a few sentences here and there to cover a fashion item? Dream Focus 16:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's to meet the GNG, yes. That's not me expecting, by the bye ... that's the GNG itself.  Ravenswing  19:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The GNG requires that the sources be a) reliable, and b) address the subject directly and in some detail. The GNG does not mandate that the source address the topic in depth nor that the topic must be the sole subject of the source. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD of Masato Funaki

Link here: [56]

As you declined my proposed deletion of this article I thought I'd let you know I"ve listed it at Articles for Deletion. The concern that I have was not just WP:V but WP:N, and under WP:GNG notability requires reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject, none of the ELs quality in my opinion. IMDB and ANN are problematic for sourcing in general. If you can provide reliable secondary sources which really cover the Masato Funaki in detail I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination. They need not be in English. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to participate

User:Wuhwuzdat has made a very WP:Pointy deletion nomination of List of management consulting firms after two of his wholesale deletions of article content were reverted and explained here. Since you participated in the 1st AfD, I am notifying you of the 2nd AfD in the event you wish to participate. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Toshiaki Kuwahara

I notice that you have removed the PROD template I had placed on this article but have not added any reliable sources to support the text. The article had been tagged as an unsourced biography of a living person since 2008. I had checked the links on Japanese Wikipedia before adding the PROD template. Unfortunately nothing there seemed to conform to the WP:RS standards on English Wikipedia. The article has now been nominated for deletion and you are welcome to join the discussion. If you would like to improve the article and can provide at least one reliable source, that would help establish both the subject's notability and the verifiability of the text, which is what the article lacks and which are essential for the article to remain here.--Plad2 (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I just posted on the talk page and in the AFD. There is very little text about the guy, two sentences total, and that is conformable on his official website, as well as what work he has been in. WP:BLP and WP:V are thus taken care of. Dream Focus 07:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I think you'll find the answers you are looking for at WP:ENT, WP:RS and WP:V. In the meantime, the AfD will take its course and the article will either end up improved and properly sourced or it will be deleted. It just can't stay as it is (as per WP:BLP).--Plad2 (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Voice actors are the same as actors. They don't just hire someone who reads the lines, but who can put the necessary emotions into it. If an actor's role in a show like ER is notable, than the voice actor who dubs him in a major market is also notable. It counts as a significant role so passes WP:ENT just fine. Dream Focus 14:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD question

What is the proper process for withdrawing an AfD nomination?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

you just edit the article to remove the AFD notice, and edit the AFD itself to say "withdrawn" at the top part. Dream Focus 10:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Just saw your response, and that you've already made the change. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• It's still showing as an open AFD.[57] A few steps were missed in the close. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh well. Someone will fix that. I searched through various pages to find out how to remove it, but I don't see anything. Dream Focus 00:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Tb

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

And by the way, I do not think Epee will be able to respond on my talk page to your question.[58] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Broken AFD stat toolserver...

Since you brought the issue to my attention, I asked at over at Talk AFD. In response, Fram has now set the tool to not appear in the AFD template for any new AFDs, though it will still be visible on older ones. I am still trying to learn why the tool, if it is seen as inappropriate, was ever added in the first place, and how and when it got broken. Since this was initiated by your note to me, please feel free to look in. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Wilson

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

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

Merry Christmas!

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

Mega Drive sales

You can't just go in and change that without getting editor consensus first. See this discussion here [59] and maybe start a new one in that articles discussion page if you agree with what I was saying.--SexyKick 00:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

[60]That is just plain stupid. Instead of listing the sales figures there, where all the other sales figures for other consoles is at, there is a link to a place that says it sold 40 million copies in various formats. Why not just add that up for people and save time? Looks ridiculous how it is now. If its alright to have that information farther down in the article, no reason not to put it in the main article itself. I'll discuss it on the proper talk page. Dream Focus 01:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm with you on that discussion.--SexyKick 02:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think you can get consensus to shift towards adding the numbers, I say go for it. You have my support for adding the numbers. I don't think others will go along with you though.--SexyKick 06:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Two of us are for it, and only one person against it, so I did it. Honestly now. Their objection is based on them thinking it original research to add numbers together, when in fact, it is simply math and common sense. Dream Focus 08:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There are actually more editors against it if you read through the archive...I don't want to edit war away the progress of having the current info listed. But, maybe this will stand. I think we'd need about seven editors who agreed with us though. Remember wikipedia is about discussing changes, not voting on them.--SexyKick 08:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Policies come before all else. If their only objection is because they misunderstood what original research means, then they should read the section for it. WP:CALC. Dream Focus 08:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well there's another talk going on here [61]--SexyKick 01:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope you're still around, we could really use your nod towards consensus to add like you started.--SexyKick 05:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Phoenix Jones

The article Phoenix Jones has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This individual does not appear to meet inclusion guidelines WP:BIO / WP:GNG - the news source mentioned is a blog, stating that the photographs were taken by the individual. Even if there were coverage of this story (which I cannot find), it would fail on the basis on being just one event.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Chzz  ►  08:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You couldn't find references, even though the reference section links to interviews and video sections about the guy? And it isn't just one event, since he was previously covered before the stopping of that thief. Also, more coverage is given to him, not the event. Dream Focus 08:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep fighting the fight...

I just want to drop a quick note telling you how much I hate opposing (for lack of a better word) you at AfD. Hope my rebuttals aren't causing hard feelings, I've always admired your tenacity in saving articles. You should consider pitching in at Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue and find sources for these articles before they get to AfD. J04n(talk page) 16:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Mato (illustrator)

Just because Mato drew Pokemon Adventures, doesn't make them notable for an article. If you can find sources to actually write an article bigger then 5 sentences, then feel free to un-redirect it. I redirected all 3 Pokemon Adventures related people, because they all had super short articles that I don't believe could have gotten any bigger. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The artists of a notable work is notable. This isn't the first 9 issues, but the first 9 volumes we're talking about, of a very notable series. Size of an article is not a valid reason to eliminate it. Dream Focus 18:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ranger Jones

Thanks for your message, and its sentiments. I don't own it, nor do I have any ownership feelings over it, so I will let it be deleted. I have smerged important material and citations, which is all that matters to me. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Ark

A deletion debate you voted in a while back is open again. Thought you might want to take a look. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ark (Transformers) (2nd nomination) Mathewignash (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Shingo Kobayashi

You recently commented to keep the article Shingo Kobayashi, a BLP tagged as unreferenced since January 2009. Unreferenced BLPs are a serious concern facing Wikipedia. Since you believe this article should be kept, any assistance you can provide to add substantive citations to the article would be appreciated. --Vassyana (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You tried to speed delete an article just hours after its AFD ended in keep. You need to reevaluate your take on things. And no, this is not a serious concern, or any concern at all. The rule was to prevent information that might be libel. There is nothing in that article which would be consider offensive or slanderous in any possible way, it just listing his works. Dream Focus 18:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Suicide of Nicola Raphael

recreated after finding an article showing it led to policy reviews etc can you keep an eye out in case it is targeted again RR1953 (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hajime no Ippo

Its been months and I haven't had a response on the talk page. [62]

Also last comment. They said exactly what I have been saying. Gune (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I just commented on that talk page. Dream Focus 07:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC

There is a request for outside comment at Talk:Spark_(fire) which I felt you should be alerted of.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I said my peace, and nothing has changed my mind. No need to repeat my opposition. Neither of us seem able to convince the other. Dream Focus 12:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I just want to make sure you know that, although we are currently in a bit of a dispute, it's nothing personal against you. I'm just trying to get the article to a more fitting title that would make it less likely to be challenged, merged, deleted, or whatever in the future, and I'm having trouble understanding your rationale for why fire fits.--Yaksar (let's chat) 11:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It was challenged for deletion before, and ended in keep. I think I explained things as best I could on the proper discussion page, as has others. Particle is not a better solution to fire. Lets keep that discussion there. Dream Focus 11:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Civility

Please try to be aware of Wikipedia:BITE. This edit seems to be unnecessarily harsh. The edit you undid certainly looks like it was made in total good faith, and actually even seems to be accurate, not vandalism. Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said, the only other edit the person has ever done was vandalism, so I honestly doubt it was more than the same. And while you are here, I'd like to point you in the direction of this rule: WP:STALKING You seem to be following certain people around lately. Dream Focus 23:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's the "Get a life, kid" part at the end that Yaksar found objectionable. Vandalism can be fought effectively without resorting to personal insults. In fact, one school of thought suggests that it's getting emotional reactions like this from others that encourages vandals to do their work in the first place. Also, while those who have encountered your work before may have gotten used to your unique personal style, you should probably be aware that the relatively mild "get a life" can be seen as significantly more insulting by someone who's never encountered you before.  :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

They want people to be upset, not tell them what dumbasses they are. After seeing what he did for his first edit, changing behaviour to behalves, [63] I didn't have any patience for him. Since it is an IP address, it could be a different person though. Dream Focus 02:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yaksar, "unnecesssary harsh" is telling people their articles are crap and trying to delete them. Telling someone to get a life instead of vandalizing Wikipedia all day, is not. Dream Focus 02:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You might enjoy...

... this. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool.! We must transform Wikipedia, to understand the Transformers. Dream Focus 10:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Issues of Voobly

Hi, I dont't know what is happened between Boobly and Wikipedia. But Voobly is the multilayer platform for the game Midtown Madness 2 and is equivalent to MSN Gaming Zone, GameSpy, XFire. I think it is suitable to record "Voobly" in the article for people just knowing it, not for any advertising.

If Voobly cannot stay in Wikipedia matter no matter what reasons, I would recommend to delete all kinds of multiplayer that the articles mentioned, or even request deletion of all the multiplayer client in Wikipedia like MSN Gaming Zone, GameSpy, XFire (Category:Online gaming services).--Honeybee (Talk) 11:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Check the Wikipedia Blacklist talk page for while its on it. Microsoft Games are legally and officially played on MSN and Microsoft also told people to use GameSpy. So that's fine. And many anonymous IP addresses and new users kept spamming Voobly links everywhere. Official sites, and sites mention by the official company's only. If people want to find a commercial site that has it, they can use Google. Dream Focus 13:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

But in fact, now the only MM2 active community is available on the Voobly, and the multiplayer software mentioned on the article are not. So what can I do? May I use the old name of Voobly instead? --Honeybee (Talk) 14:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Go to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and you can see Voobly is on the list. You can talk on the discussion page if you wish. Do yo have any other accounts on Wikipedia that you edit under? If so, you are required to reveal that, or be banned for sockpuppets. Dream Focus 17:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dream Focus. With sadness I see you deleting all kinds of attempts of concerned multiplayers to point out the existence of Voobly. I realize, that links to the Voobly page have been added to the spam list. In the X-Wing Alliance article you deleted my sentence mentioning that Voobly succeeding the old multiplayer client for XWA and XvT, Errant Venture. This sentence is true, Errant Venture is not used anymore, but Voobly is. You reverted it to an untrue sentence (Errant Venture still used). I appreciate your work watching games articles and keeping them spam free, but I don't see why Voobly shouldnt even been mentioned. I didnt post a link but only a word. Wikipedia is about helping the reader and being up-to-date, which is what I'm trying to do here.

Your argument, that Voobly somehow uses these games illegally (you didnt say that directly, though) is inconsistent, cause we had to, like 蜜蜂/Honeybee correctly states, would have to delete every mentioning of third-party gaming software. I'm not paid by Voobly nor do I pay them anything. they just need to make a little money to pay off their own server costs. there's nothing wrong about that. Maybe you can think about it again and try to see it from the active gamer perspective. It's about games man! Games! It's not a too important topic and a field where wikipedia rules should be carried out in the strictest possible manner. However, I don't want to harm the flow of your creative juices! I appreciate your work as a very active editor. Please keep up the good work. I only ask you to think about our perspective again. Thanks in advance for reconsidering. --Lenzoid (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You are obviously one of the same people that did this before. You have a new account, with few posts, [64] and sound like some of the others have. And you just slipped in mention of it. Other editors, some of them banned for spamming, have done the same, before then coming back and adding a link. Voobly running Microsoft Ants without Microsoft's permission is illegal. The rest, I don't know about. You have no reason to mention them or any other things though, unless its the official site, or has been mentioned by the parent company is a place to play games at. Dream Focus 12:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Allright, I see now why you're doing this. This whole discussion helped to elevate my understanding of what Wikipedia is. It's about to build an encyclopedia and not for advertising. And it's about trust. I admit that what I did yet had not much to with building an encyclopedia, yet. Nevertheless I do not to give up on this matter, I might want to continue the discussion of the topic at a later date, maybe after I made some more useful contributions and looking into the legal issues you mentioned. --Lenzoid (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Role-playing video game has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. For an explanation of what formal mediation is, see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy. Please now review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then, in the "party agreement" section, indicate whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.

Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for mediation concerning Role-playing video game, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible for this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 14:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Template:Degrassi episodes

Hello, I am assuming you are the same Dream Focus on the Manga Wiki. I was going through my Wikia "contributions", and noticed that you imported Template:Degrassi episodes from the English Wikipedia. I was just wondering why, are there any Degrassi related articles on the Manga Wiki? 117Avenue (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There must've been a manga article that used that template, and it got included in a template import. Or maybe I imported everything in the Category:Intricate templates to try to get the infoboxes and some other things to work properly, and just got some extra ones not needed as well. I guess I could go through a list of the unused templates and delete them. If its a lot, then it'd take too long, since I'd have to do it one by one. They don't take up much space and aren't hurting anything, so no big deal. Dream Focus 09:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. 117Avenue (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dream Focus. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 18:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File permission problem with File:Doing battle with the Deletionists.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Doing battle with the Deletionists.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I have read both linked OTRS tickets and User talk:Padguy and they remain insufficient permission. We need an explicit release under a free license or into the public domain. A release for "anywhere on the net" says nothing about hardcopies or derivative works or commercial reuse. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Another administrator has already taken care of this. You can release something to be published on the internet, without allowing anyone to print and sell it. There is a license for that. You know without any doubt that the owner of the copyright said it could be published anywhere on the internet, and I specifically asked him about Wikipedia. So its fine. Dream Focus 21:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid it has not been "taken care of". The OTRS agent who placed the original ticket on the image did not mark it as sufficient. In that ticket there was a specific request for a more explicit release to which there has been no response. The previous appropriate deletion tagging was removed by an editor who is neither an admin nor an OTRS volunteer. Permission to use material on Wikipedia is sufficient for a {{Non-free with permission}} tagging in addition to all of the necessary non-free content information but it is not the same as public domain. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Then just switch the tag! How simple is that? Dream Focus 21:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the tag. It would be a non-free image and subject to all of the non-free content policies and guidelines. As such, it would be removed from your userpage and then be an orphaned non-free image and still subject to deletion in 7 days unless some other situation changed. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the tags. Its impossible to fit the thing on the Peter David article, so they just link to it. And since he gave permission for it to be used anywhere on the internet, that includes my user page, not just article pages. It is mentioned in the article for this super famous long established well respected writer, and linked to it from there. Dream Focus 21:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Its used in one article, by a link. So that counts. As for it being on my user page as well, that's because a bot will automatically incorrectly label it as orphaned even though it isn't. If you can make that bot ignore it, then no need for me to have it on my user page. Otherwise it is allowed under exceptions. Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria_exemptions#Exemptions See that? Its necessary to maintain the encyclopedia, since otherwise the valid image can not exist, it constantly hit by the orphan bot, and then erased by accident. Dream Focus 21:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should reread the tag, since as you fixed it, it is currently subject to speedy deletion under F3. I also recommend you read the non-free content criteria I linked to. As non-free content, the use on your userpage fails criteria #9. While it could arguably be included in the article, it currently fails #3 and probably #8 as well for that use. Exemptions are for pages used to manage questionable non-free content, not personal data storage. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

1. 3 is not violated. Lower quality could not be used, and still be readable. "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." won't work either, since you need the entire article, it about Wikipedia. And if you read Peter David then you'll notice part of that article, which this does in fact "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" discussed there. Dream Focus 22:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I had earlier edited this image page and although the way it was changed is certainly better, I'm afraid I agree that it is now in conflict with WP:NFCC#9. Hekerui (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If I get it off my user page, then will it be tagged by an automatic orphan bot, or can you get that bot to ignore it? It is linked to and referenced in the Peter David article, so its not an orphan. Any other problems with it now? Can I move it to Wikimedia or someplace and have the Wikipedia article link to it there? Dream Focus 23:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged the image as an orphan because regardless of where it is being linked from it is not being used in any article and so it is in violation of WP:NFCC#7. If it is not used in an article it will be deleted in one week. Please add an appropriate license tag to the image; if you do not it will be deleted immediately under WP:CSD#F3. Since he's given permission for it to be used anywhere on internet you can of course place it on some personal website and place an external link to it, but its current (lack of) use fails the requirements for keeping it on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons directly. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Well, now he's deleted it, even though I added it to an appropriate article, and its clear we had permission. Is Verno a bot or something?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that and posted on the administrator's page, asking about that. Everything had been fixed, all information filled out, everything explained perfectly. Rather surprising to see it suddenly be deleted like that. Dream Focus 00:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Dream could you email me a copy of the file? (milo_went (at) yahoo.com) Cheers.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    • No problem. It has been done. Dream Focus 03:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

moved to the bottom where new stuff goes

Hey Dream Focus,

Based on the discussion here >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_February_19#CardHub.com I was wondering whether you can take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarabas/CardHub.com and give me any feedback so that the page gets restored and not deleted. I would really appreciate your help Sarabas (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

They haven't decided whether or not to restore it yet. If not, I don't know what's wrong with them, since it gets coverage. Should've gone to a proper AFD anyway. Some people just hate everything and don't mind destroying things others have worked on. Dream Focus 22:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• • What I meant to say is that I made a lot of changes on the page over the past couple of days. I would really appreciate if you could look at the page as it looks now and let me know your thoughts so that we maximize the chances for restoration. I am open to any suggestions in order to make it better. Also shall I still do an AFD? Thanks so much! Sarabas (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • If they didn't think the article was notable, they should've sent it to AFD, and discussed it with people. They instead did a speedy delete, which wasn't called for. Hopefully you won't have to go through an AFD at all, if people can be convinced its notable. Article looks fine to me. The more news sources you can find that mention it, the better. Dream Focus 00:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Hey buddy - the article is up for discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CardHub.com I would appreciate if you could give your 2 cents. I made even more improvements from last time so I think it is on an even stronger foundation Sarabas (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• While you're there I have a similar request right on the same day/page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_February_19#Agalmics much obliged if you have the time.Locutus42 (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea about that topic. If its the same as another topic, then merge makes sense. What does it have that the other one does not? Discuss it on the deletion review though, to convince people to restore it. Dream Focus 22:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Kinetic Architecture

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

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

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

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Dream Focus, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Dream Focus/Doing battle with the Deletionists. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Image on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan (2nd nomination)

To be quite honest, I would suggest leaving the image removed; it doesn't really help our argument, and will only make it easier for those who want the page deleted to characterize everyone who wants it kept as "fanboys" and the like. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 06:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the article is fine, and will be kept. The news coverage proves its notable. The only people trying to delete it are just haters. The image is most appropriate. Dream Focus 06:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of season one episode articles of House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articles Paternity (House), Occam's Razor (House), Maternity (House), Damned If You Do, The Socratic Method (House), Fidelity (House), Poison (House), DNR (House), Histories (House), Detox (House), Sports Medicine (House), Cursed (House), Control (House), Mob Rules (House), Heavy (House), Role Model (House), Babies & Bathwater, Kids (House), Love Hurts (House) and Honeymoon (House) are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternity (House) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

NPA

[65] Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If he finds images like that sexually provocative he is a pervert by every meaning of the word. Dream Focus 04:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities

Hi Dream Focus. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination), your input is sought at Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities. There are disputes over who should be and who shouldn't be included in the list. Cunard (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Rescue Barnstar

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

I absolutely endorse Heroic inclusionist against the evil deletionist hordes

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

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Members

Hello fellow rescuer! Keep up the good work.

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

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

Re: you made a minor mistake in your application

Thanks for your advice. Actually I did include a link to an edit counter on toolserver that show my number of article edits in es:wiki. wikisilki 23:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD stats

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

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

Sergeant Hatred DRV

Hi. I saw that you reverted my comment at WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 22. Would you consider self-reverting and restoring it? It's a new comment, I did not bold a recommendation, and I wrote it soon (just under 5 hours) after the close. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Many people would love to add that comments to AFDs. But the rule still stands. "The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it." Dream Focus 06:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If I moved my comment to the talk page, would you allow a link to there inserted into the DRV? Since DRV talk pages are usually unused, a comment there would probably go unnoticed and unread without a pointer. Flatscan (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No one is ever going to read a closed deletion review anyway. You posting that you agree with the "redirect" five hours after its already been done, doesn't make any sense at all. The rules are quite clear on this. If I hadn't reverted you, someone else probably would've noticed and done the same. And you can post whatever you want on a talk page. Dream Focus 04:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I intend to link this DRV from a future discussion at WT:Articles for deletion, so someone may read it then. My comment explains some of my reasoning. I wasn't sure that my comment would be reverted – if I were sure, I wouldn't have posted it there. Restating the question: if I move my comment to the talk page and add a link on the DRV, will you also revert that link? Flatscan (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk to the administrator that closed that discussion and ask them if its appropriate. Dream Focus 05:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Some people often spend time reading old discussions:). XfD talk page comments are useful, but only if the discussion is on its own page, which is not the case for DRVs. I see value in the comment, and no harm in adding it below the archive box, as I have done here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:CEO

Category:CEO, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hotels

List of hotels up for AFD (again). I've begun formatting in tables for A with information.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hotel Plaza Grande

Nommed for a joint DYK. I've requested images on flickr so fingers crossed..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You put up a red link, so I thought I'd be helpful and get it started. I searched Google news archive to find places that mentioned it. Not sure how helpful that was. Dream Focus 19:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is required...

As a participant who has voiced an opinion over at the TF WikiProject about proposals to change the article formats, a set out proposal has been provided and as a participant in the overall discussions, your agreement or disagreement in regards to them is required, if you so wish to provide an answer. Link to proposals here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Transformers#What_the_proposal_actually_is Mabuska ^(talk) 19:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Click here

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

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

DYK nomination of Hotel Plaza Grande

Hello! Your submission of Hotel Plaza Grande at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Soman (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Dr Blofed did all the work. [66] See? I just started the basic stub, and he expanded it to the article. He is the hotel expert not me. Dream Focus 02:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

How do you do it?

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

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

Defining rape in the lead of the Rape article

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

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

I've left a comment on the image issue on the article's talk page. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Peter David

Category:Peter David, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Erie Anime Experience

I want to know why you deleted erie anime experience page, if you don't allow anime convention pages then delete them all not just the ones you dislike. Now I know why the trade school I went to said not to trust anything on this site. You say to keep it neutral, the page was wrote with facts, that can be found on the EAE site as well as animecons.com and many more. I should tell everyone that Wiki is to bias and only allows content that the Admins want/like and heck with everyone else. (Kenshinkyo (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)).