User talk:Dream Focus

Wikipedia ads	file info – #193

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

inclThis user is an inclusionist.

This user rescues articles for the Article Rescue Squadron.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 17 years, 10 months and 3 days.

Dream Focus Talk Page

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

Re: Deletionists

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

Akane-chan Overdrive

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

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

WP:NPA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• merge

One entry found.

Function: verb

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

synonyms see mix

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

• 'delete

One entry found.

Function: transitive verb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment on an AfD?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 2009

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

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

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

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

testing out this subpage thing

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

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

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

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

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

Collapsing talkpage sections

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

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

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

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

Boldly clarified your proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fancruft template

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

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

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

Policy links to fight off future harassment

Notifying interested people

Wikipedia:AFDHOWTO#Notifying_interested_people:

Notifying substantial contributors to the article

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#AfD Wikietiquette:

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

Place a notification on significant pages that link to nomination

Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination states:

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

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

May 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strengths of arguments in favor of keeping?

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

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

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

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

archiving now

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

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

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

Rugrats characters - Please reconsider!

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

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

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

Telepathy and war

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

update

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

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

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

Edit summaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

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

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

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

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

Taking the bait

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your user page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikihounding versus wikistalking

I'd appreciate it if you would look at [8] and suitably amend your edit(s) at [9]? 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.[10] Regardless that the arbcom unanimously in two sections of an arbcom determined that Jack Merridew's sock puppet was this word in 2006,[11][12] 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" [13] 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 [14] Dream Focus 16:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Google Hits in AfD's

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

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

User talk:Jimbo Wales

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

But I Digress

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG

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

User:Dream_Focus#Deletionist_mentality_forced_upon_the_rest

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

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

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

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

User page

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

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

Google searches for notability

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question regarding merging

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

You have to be more specific. Are you talking about the manga/anime merges or the Ultima merge perhaps? The discussion for the merge of Ultima was at [15] 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 [16] 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. [17] 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[18]. 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 [19]. It then went to Wikiquette board [20] 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. [21] I'm not sure if the guy is still working on it, or not. Dream Focus 03:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

On tagging but not posting

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

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

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

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

Iceland–Mexico relations

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

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

Citing Google hits

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

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

See how easy that was? [22] You could've easily just read through the summaries, looking at anything published after the year 2000 to see what was him. I can not link to the articles themselves, since all newspapers seem to require people to pay to read the full article these days, and what you end up with is less than what you can read in the Google search summary usually anyway. Dream Focus 03:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

caution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featherlite Trailers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image

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

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

Re:Incivility

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

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

User:Dream_Focus#Another_typical_day_for_the_Rescue_Squadron

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

Freedom of speech

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

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

Wilson

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

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

Kinetic Architecture

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

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

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

The Rescue Barnstar

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

I absolutely endorse Heroic inclusionist against the evil deletionist hordes

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

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Members

Hello fellow rescuer! Keep up the good work.

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

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

AfD stats

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

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

Click here

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

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

How do you do it?

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

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

Defining rape in the lead of the Rape article

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

Reply at my Talk

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

Deletionists

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

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

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

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Dream Focus,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware

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

You ignored consensus of those there, and cast a super vote. Bad administrator. [26] CyberShack is a reliable source. It is a broadcast television show.[27] They do not let just anyone post on their website, but decide what is worth putting there themselves. If they thought software was notable enough to put an article, then so be it. And there is no minimum word requirement. That seems like a long enough article to me. How much more could anyone write about something like this? [28] And Linux Magazine is a reliable source.[29] They are a print magazine with editorial oversight. Did you see http://lwn.net/op/FAQ.lwn ? They review anything submitted to them, so editorial oversight is there as well. Those saying to Keep the article are Qrsdogg, Widefox, Dcxf, and Dream Focus. Those wanting to delete it are Hrafn. Consensus was clearly to keep it. I've seen articles in major newspapers that are similar, since they all get their basic information from the same sources. But they don't cover everything. They decide what they consider notable to their readers. Administrators are suppose to judge the consensus of those participating in the AFD, not ignore them entirely and go with their own opinion. Consensus was clearly that the sources were enough. Please reconsider your actions. If not, I'll take this to deletion review. Dream Focus 05:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Talkback

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

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

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

Notice

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

An all American apple pie for you!

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

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

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

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

Re: Your bot made a mistake

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

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

Notable Software

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

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

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

Navy-Vieques protest article

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

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

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

answer

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

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

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

RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"

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

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

Happy WikiBithday!!

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

Grant Morrison photo

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

Ellen Kennedy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Risk of canvassing?

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

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

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

Talkback

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

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

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

Use of Rescue Tag At Origin of death stories

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

Ellen Kennedy Deus

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

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

Cat request

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

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

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

Voice actors

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well deserved

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

Deletionism and Inclusionism

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

If you are referring to the Cult Brands article, I did not say keep, since in its current state there isn't anything to keep. The topic does get ample news coverage, so someone could write an article with that name and make it valid. Anyway, someone did create a bot to track how many times someone has said keep or delete in AFDs and how that discussion ended. See: [30] It hasn't been updated since March though, and isn't 100% accurate. It does show I have in fact said delete dozens of times. If it is a hoax, mindless spam, or a personal vanity page for someone who hasn't accomplished anything notable in one field or another, I vote delete. I do support specific guidelines for including things in Wikipedia, provided the Wikipedia Foundation itself determined this, or allowed a general vote where the millions of Wikipedia users would be aware of the discussion, and have time to vote. What we have now though, is a small number of people camping out at the guideline pages arguing nonstop to get their way, changing it to be able to keep what they like and eliminate what they don't like. Dream Focus 12:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I need your opinion

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

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

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

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

Note

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

ScrewAttack

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

Previous deletion on your talk page

I might not have expressed myself clearly enough earlier, but you seem to be aiming at the wrong target. I have previously posted a comment on your talk page, pointing out that simply deleting links to Earthwave.org is counterproductive. Such a deletion needs to come with a suggestion of what it is that they are doing wrong--something that I've tried to do. At no point did I advocate that the links should be reinstated. Instead of bothering to read the full comment, which was supportive of your action (but suggested that it was insufficient), you simply deleted it, believing that it came from Earthwave people. It did not--I am actually on your side in this. But impatient, brusque, flippant or non-responsive reactions are not helpful in a cooperative environment. You need to learn to be more deferential toward other editors--most of us are not stupid and all of us (just about) are volunteers. And some of us may know a lot more than you do in any particular area. Rash actions are bound to drive many competent and knowledgeable editors away. Alex.deWitte (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Both red linked names that start with the letter A. Yet, I confused you for him, whatever. Doesn't matter. I explained why I removed his spam in the edit summaries, others having done it before me. I also went to his talk page, and found someone else had already posted a warning about advertising [31] which is what he was clearly doing. Anyway, the discussion is now at [32]. And this is now competent and knowledgeable editor, but a person who added in links for no other reason than to make some money from selling things on their site. Dream Focus 18:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Alex, and DF - To begin, I truly regret that we got off on the wrong foot. It was not my intention. I thought I was helping by adding an external link to what I felt was a viable resource. I did not quite understand the psychology of Wiki, or the editors who put forth so much effort to maintain quality, and accuracy. I have learned a great deal this past week, have a much better understanding of the inner workings, and realize there is a great deal more to learn. ChaseMe was also a tremendous help, as were several other editors who provided constructive criticism about why the links were unacceptable, and they did it in a mature, courteous manner. It would help a great deal if veteran editors would be a little more patient and understanding of neophytes such as myself, and how our lack of experience with a new endeavor can sometimes inadvertently cause a stir. I do hope we can put this all behind us, and move forward to continue doing great things. (still trying to remember the darned ole tildes)Atsme (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

That sounds nice and all, and I'd like to assume good faith here, but you did keep trying to link to products you were selling, and there not much else on the website as far as education goes, it just mostly looking like an ad. Dream Focus 00:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we do offer DVDs, but sales are not just cause for deletion per Wiki, and we couldn't get past the entitlement mindset which plagues society today. The winning justification, which was actually subjective but not without merit, was the determination our site lacked enough relevant content to justify the outside link, so you are absolutely correct on that point. I recently submitted a proposal to the Board to revamp/update the site, especially considering "sales" are not our primary objective, rather it's about conservation, and public awareness to the plight of threatened and endangered species. Our organization is not a government supported entity, or an organization that collects dues, and we certainly aren't supported by grants from the super rich. We operate exclusively on donations, and volunteers, very much like Wiki, but we probably have higher overhead. We have contributed our documentaries to PBS for free broadcast, and we have even made donations to PBS. They are also available for free viewing in public libraries, schools, and universities, but there comes a point when the give-aways become overwhelming, and can threaten the very existence of an organization. Not your problem, so let's move on, and focus on the things that motivated us to contribute our time to Wikipedia. Atsme (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

Awards

Hiya, I went ahead and restored the HeroEngine finalist award. It was definitely sourced as a finalist,[33] so I'm not sure why it got removed from the article? --Elonka 05:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Even though its a print magazine with 35,000 people reading it, I don't see how its awards matter. They list anything that came out that year in each category, and don't have the same categories each year even, and get no coverage outside of their own poorly selling magazine. Have you looked through what they list year by year? Dream Focus 05:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The source says "finalists", not "all engines released that year", so Wikipedia should stick to what the source actually says. --Elonka 15:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, doesn't really matter. An award given in 2006 to an engine that has thus far been used to make only two complete games ever, neither of which were released until five years after that. Seemed to me they were just listing things that showed some remote potential. Anyway, whatever. They are technically a reliable source, so its fine. Dream Focus 16:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of files in articles

Why would files in Wikimedia in use in Wikipedia articles be suggested for speedy deletion? I don't see the reason or any particular logic to such an action. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Has to be a copyright violation, otherwise it wouldn't qualify. Link to the files you are talking about and I'll see. Dream Focus 22:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Found it. It says "F2. Corrupt or empty image." Well, the image doesn't seem corrupt, and it certainly isn't empty. Not a proper reason for it. I'll ask the guy that tagged it. Dream Focus 22:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)

Appears to be an image that is hosted on commons, but which has text in the same file name on WP. As it's hosted at commons, the WP content should be removed (it's a null-file here), all the text related to the image should also be at commons. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the WP file page. As you can see, the MW image file is still available under the same name.

It gets confusing with image files, because the MW images are mirrored to be visible in WP under the same name. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As long as the images continue to be in use from the Wikipedia articles, I am satisfied, but I don't quite follow the explanations. I will look further at the images on Wikimedia. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't word it clearly, sorry about that. I'll try to phrase it better - but like I said, the images do get confusing sometimes because of the mirroring.

The images involved were all saved to the Wikimedia Commons ... but those same images are visible on Wikipedia under the same name for convenience - not actually on Wikipedia, just mirroring the content from Wikimedia Commons (example: The file at commons:File:Phila_Vine_St_Expressway21.png is also visible at File:Phila_Vine_St_Expressway21.png). Because the image is actually saved to Wikimedia Commons, the Wikipedia filename should not contain any text or templates.

However, in the cases I saw, while the image was saved to Wikimedia Commons, what was tagged for speedy deletion was text and templates under the Wikipedia file name - so the speedy deletion was only applicable to the text and templates on Wikipedia, not the image itself which was saved on Wikimedia Commons. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now I follow you. What I do not understand is how the text and templates got created at all on Wikipedia. I uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons, and then referenced them in Wikipedia articles. Thank you for your patience with me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Kanetake Ebikawa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kanetake Ebikawa is 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/Kanetake Ebikawa 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. Pburka (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive input

Your constructive input is appreciated. Wikipedia is about building a digital encyclopedia, and I appreciate your efforts to do so.

A barnstar for you

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thanks for your efforts to rescue articles about notable topics that have hastily been nominated for deletion without due cause. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I started a discussion about the AfD deletion nomination process

• I managed to start a discussion about my treatise, "Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process", located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Pikkapika Comics's Proposed Deletion

I reverted your edit and added a summary, if there's anything please open discussion on the article's talk page. :) Salvidrim (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You can't undo someone's prod. That's now how it works. A prod can be removed if someone "otherwise object to deletion for any reason". Dream Focus 17:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yea, sorry, I'm still learning and kinda new at those things. Thanks for your understanding. :) Salvidrim (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Mohammad Ala

Hi, I'm trying to improve Mohammad Ala. I was wondering if you could help me. Thanks. In fact ( contact ) 11:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN

In reference to your comments at the AfD for Dreamwidth...the WP:BURDEN is on the people that want to add information to the article. I fulfilled WP:BEFORE, my version of WP:BURDEN--I read the article, checked it's sources, and looked for more on both Google web and Google News. I didn't turn up anything sufficient to establish notability, so I nominated it for deletion. If you want to rescue the article, then rescue it, don't just provide a source in the AfD, since that does nothing to actually improve the article/encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Not how AFDs work. The AFD is to establish the notability of the article's subject, nothing else mattering there. I've been doing this for years, and this comes up from time to time. Burden means if you add something into the article, you need to find a reference for it, it having nothing to do with AFDs. Dream Focus 02:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that only addresses notability. It does nothing to make the article pass WP:V and other relevant policies. Unfortunately, people have gotten so excited about rescuing articles that they tend to forget that notability is not the only issue, and the the real point is to fix articles, not simply circumvent the deletion process. There was a day when the ARS actually improved things. I miss that. I view the current trend at AFD, where sources of dubious quality, generally consisting of passing mentions that don't actually contribute to notability, are trotted out as proof that garbage articles should be kept despite being garbage as an abuse of process. —Kww(talk) 03:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You can verify it exist, since it gets notable coverage. AFD is not cleanup. AFD is only to determine if the subject is notable, and to make sure it doesn't violated any rules, and that's it. Seriously, don't twist things around to find an excuse to destroy articles you don't like, just because you consider them "garbage". Dream Focus 04:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. But ARS isn't "you do the rescue" either. In a place that ARS only does the minimum amount of rescuing, it is natural AfD becomes somewhat a tool for enforcing the bare minimum amount of cleanup. I think ARS and all Wikipedians that participate in AfDs should help improve an article all the way up to a Class C article. Mind you, we did more than that to TuneUp Utilities. We rescued it and made it a Good Article. Fleet Command (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

AFD is NOT for cleanup, nor is the ARS. And the "Good Article" thing is nonsense. A good article has thousands of page hits in a day not a month. A small group of people who just go around giving out that title to things written the way they want, doesn't matter at all to me. Perhaps since articles have the voting thing at the bottom, we can see what is really well written, as far as information people interested in the subject will want to read and presented in a way they can easily comprehend it. Dream Focus 10:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Question: how does what you do improve the encyclopedia? You go to a fair amount of effort to find sources, but only post them on the AfD page, which will soon be locked away forever and never looked at again. How does that help our readers? Why is it helpful to "rescue" articles only to leave them unsourced, unverified, and of (from a reader's perspective) questionable notability? Instead, if you had added that source to the article with maybe one sentence or so of extracted detail, then, on the AfD said "I just added another source that is definitely an independent RS discussing the subject in detail", wouldn't the result be the same? I don't know how to assume good faith here.... Qwyrxian (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I add them, sometimes I don't. Most people who read the article don't care about the source. So the article was fine without it. Whether they are ignoring the sources on the AFD page, the talk page, or in the article, its all the same thing really. If I thought it actually helped the article any, it'd be different, but I couldn't care less to hear "this guy who works at this newspaper said this, and you should care about their opinions enough to let it help determine yours". That's just stupid really. And the AFD closes as keep if sources are found to prove the article notable, not whether or not someone bothers to add them. Dream Focus 00:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

First, your view of the Good Article is totally wrong. A Good Article is one that satisfies Good Article Criteria regardless of its daily hits. Second, you cannot shirk your duties and expect us to do ours to the letter. If none cares then let AfD delete it; what is the point of your constant repetition of the catch phrase "AfD is not cleanup" which is semantically wrong? Seriously, Dream Focus, rescuing article from the brink of death only to leave at the brink of death is not rescue at all. Fleet Command (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you guys aren't seeing the value of Dream's work as you have fundamentally different views about the purpose of the project? For many he's one of our very best contributors.

Some seem to think our end goal ought to be to an encyclopaedia which will impress elite professors: with every sentence either deleted or cited to a top tier source. Folk like Dream , myself and many others are more interested in sharing knowledge that regular folk find interesting and useful . We tend to reject the view that the average reader is concerned about notability. If they're interested in a topic, they like to read a detailed and interesting article about – ideally presented in a clear and easy to understand way. Most readers don't really care whether or not elite editors in papers like New York Times have bothered to cover it. If the reader isnt interested in a topic, theyre unlikely to arrive at its page, and if they do they wont waste more than a few seconds before moving on.

I welcome editors adding sources just to the AfD. It helps us operate as a team to make improvements – there are some editors like myself who prefer to integrate sources to articles without having to search. Also it might help the nominator and delete voters see how their own searches were lacking – and hence maybe discourage future time wasting AfDs. If it bothers you so much, add the sources yourself, rather than trying to force others to work against their own inclinations. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well said. Dream Focus 11:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

FleetCommand, when I say a good article, I mean an article that is good, not an article that is declared a "good article" since that is a meaningless title. And you can not "shirk your duties" on Wikipedia, since no one has duties at all, it a volunteer project. Dream Focus 11:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles rescued template for user pages

Clemens is apparently the user who created the template. I already tried using my own user name in the template, but it doesn't work at all that way. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Dream Focus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

In fact ( contact ) 08:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davina_Reichman

Hi Dream Focus,

What is your opinion on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davina_Reichman article? Since I re-rote it, and hopefully no-one changed it, do you think it is of note or not? I respect your opinion because I have read your talkpage and in your talkpage you mention the problems with Wikipedia and I agree. If you say "delete" I will delete it and re-wire my thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Domenico.y (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

Remember to add references to a statement if that has been specifically said in the referenced article. I added a reception section to list what others have said of this person. Dream Focus 00:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dream Focus,

The Davina Reichman article isn't nominated for deletion anymore.

If you are satisfied with the article, considering a few other editors have edited it, then please remove the banners "The topic of this article may not meet the notability guideline for biographies...." and "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject...." please, so that I can move on and edit other articles.

I think editing articles about adventure sports is next :) Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

You, or anyone else, can remove those useless tags at any time. Dream Focus 15:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dream Focus,

I can't remove those tags because it says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject...." and if I remove that, then I think the wikipedians will have a problem with that.

"The topic of this article may not meet the notability guideline for biographies...." - if you are satisfied with the article, now a few editors have given their opinion and it is a far cry on the initial draft I had originally, then can you please remove it?

Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

Domenico.y's question

Hi Dream Focus, In case you have not seen it, I bring your attention to [34] citing a "textileglobal" site [35]. Do you think that is all the "proof I need" to put back the references that were removed [36]? Thank you. Domenico.y (talk)Domenico.y

http://www.textileglobal.com/about-us-2 They let anyone submit articles or press releases, so no, probably not. Dream Focus 21:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Equestria Daily

A discussion you previously took part in regarding the Equestria Daily page has been relisted for deletion. Dr. WTF (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

... but it was not you I was attacking in a fit of rage yesterday on the List of Geology Articles under threat of being deleted - "this contributor" was who I now know to be Curb Chain who has done nothing but try and get stuff deleted since he joined WP in April. I share your inclusive philosophy, myself - I believe that the deletion policy is already too fascistic, and the whole subject causes my language to become intemperate. Keep up the good work. --Matt Westwood 05:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacobson Flare

Hi Dream Focus,

At the above linked discussion, you responded to my abstention with this comment:

How many sources that cover this sort of thing are available for easy online searching? Do you sincerely doubt that it is covered elsewhere as well? PLEASE read the Wikipedia Policy at WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Dream Focus 15:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand your point, so I thought I'd ask for clarification here before making any response. You seem to be accusing me of inadequate efforts to find sources and excessive adherence to policy.

Per the first, you can see by checking the previous discussions on this article that I've made every possible effort to find sources, and in fact provided those that are currently in the article. If sources on a development in a modern and high-tech field such as aviation are not made available online, there's not much I can do. I welcome the addition of other sources (online or not), but no-one seems to be providing them, and I can't find any others myself.

Per the second, I know WP:NOT pretty well, but thanks for directing me there. I try as much as possible to adhere to the policies and guidelines because they reflect current consensus; in deletion discussions (where "consensus" is often limited to two or three editors), the policies serve as a way for the whole Wikipedia community to !vote by proxy. As a result, I think arguing from current policy (rather than attempting to rewrite it) is an appropriate process to use in AfD. Otherwise the discussion just devolves to ITSNOTABLE/ITSNOTNOTABLE. Elsewhere, WP:IGNOREALLRULES can sometimes be more applicable.

I'm abstaining because, frankly, I no longer care whether this article remains or not; I've previously argued both Keep and Delete based on the sourcing, and now, whilst I tend towards Delete, I just don't want to get bogged down in it again. However, I would like to know if your comment meant what I think it meant, based on the above, or if I've misunderstood what you were trying to say. Cheers, Yunshui (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Read the link. We're not a bunch of unbending rules. The article can be kept, even if it doesn't have a second reliable source found. Also, there probably are some out there anyway. That is my point. Dream Focus 16:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• sigh* Yeah, that's what I thought you meant. Yunshui (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystery

Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 23:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Google advanced search allows you to see how many websites link to a certain page. [37] September 14th was when you added the notice about the outline page being considered for deletion. [38] Ah, got it! I searched Google news for James Bond. Being mentioned in the news increases traffic to the Wikipedia, dramatically so if its Google news, Yahoo news/trending, or other well trafficked sites. Actors and musicians mentioned related to it probably had their articles increase in visits also do to coverage as well. You can use Google to search between specific time periods also, but the results are surprisingly not listed in chronological order. Compare how many hits it got each month. 7070 in the month of September [39] and only 2,940 times the month before. More news coverage, more traffic to Wikipedia. Dream Focus 00:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Tried to figure it out but cannot, I do not think it is because of the news, since the actual Bond page did not get any higher traffic, why shold the portal get more traffic. I tried to find a place that added a link to the portal on the 23:rd, but I find no good tools for that, think you need a special database query. I randomly checked links at[40] but can not find anything added on that day. --Stefan ^talk 06:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Did the other outline articles get more views also? Did someone mention the debate in an area that got noticed? Its not really unusual for any article to get a few dozen views some days and a hundred or so views in another day. Its not a massive jump really. The James Bond article has 5 to 10 thousand views per day recently. I don't see why the two are being compared. Dream Focus 10:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Help?

You voiced Keep on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leonard_H._Tower,_Jr.. Msnicki, the user who issued the AfD, and asked for the re-listing of that AfD, is now trying to wikilawyer the article to nothingness. I found your replies to him on the AfD to be in the interest of the encyclopedia.

Yes, the article is about me. But to me, Msnicki's edit summaries on Leonard_H._Tower,_Jr., and his posts on Talk:Leonard_H._Tower,_Jr. show clear bias and prejudice, possibly in violation of WP:BLP. He's an experienced editor with reviewer and rollback privileges. Any support or help you offer would be appreciated. I'm not sure if an admin should be involved, and even if he was warned by an admin, he would stop short of being blocked.

If you need to, I prefer you reply to me here, but your help is more important than a reply. (I dislike disjointed discussions over several Talk pages.) Msnicki also seems the type to jump all over my intervening at all. Mentioning my intervention might just cloud the real issues further. Msnicki seems to be the kind of editor who feels that WP:COI means an editor is incapable of editing well despite it. Thanks whatever you decide to do. Lentower (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that one editor seems determined the article shouldn't exist, dismissing the opinions of every other editor who participated in the AFD(we all said keep) and the closing administrator. Anyway, to help with the article, can you list any interviews you have done over the years for newspapers, magazines, radio, or whatnot? If you see information that isn't true or is misleading or distorted, post on the talk page of that article. Anything you believe should be mentioned, should be listed there as well. Dream Focus 10:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate you adding the page to your watchlist, and doing what you can. My listing sources on the Talk page will just get Msnicki spewing her/his biased point of view about WP:COI, WP:AUTO, etc.

Do you feel that is good for the article?

Do you feel that is good for the encyclopedia?

There are few sources about me that are google-able, and too many of those are behind pay-walls or otherwise have WP issues (GNU being a ground breaking project documented itself on mailing lists and USENET, etc.) rms' personality got far more media play, than the work we did together. And how many WP editors actually spend time looking at paper sources in research libraries? (Yes, WP will document little of the world's knowledge.) Thanx Lentower (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jacobson_Flare

I'd appreciate it if you would invite an equal number of !voters from the AFD. One delete !voter invite does not mean you scathe innocent of WP:CANVASS when you invitefourotherkeep !voters. I assume this was an oversight or you ran out of time. Thanks--v/r - TP 21:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked to see who was already there, and then got everyone else. I assure you, everyone was contacted who wasn't already there, that what I always make certain to do. Dream Focus 22:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I havent checked myself, but I'll take your word for it.--v/r - TP 22:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Teaching 7th grade arithmetics

His assumption that it was 4+(7*40) doesn't even make any sense at all... Salvidrim (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I know, I just didn't bother to try to reason with him any farther. Dream Focus 23:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean?

When you say that Nekopan was an account of S Marshals? I don't see anything linking him with the account. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 22:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"Also you had a suspicious account say delete after the relisting." Saying "you had a" something "down there" doesn't mean literary "you" as a person. I changed the wording to avoid confusion. [41] That's how we talk around here. Dream Focus 22:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (3rd nomination)

The nominator feels that three weeks without being improved is sufficient time for others to have fixed the addressable issues. Is it? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Equestria Daily

You might want to notify everyone who participated in the AfD both pre and post relist about the current deletion review. I, for one, would have found it useful to have been notified. Dr. WTF (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I was going to but forgot. Having to go through and copy and paste things to a couple of a dozen different talk pages takes time. I wish they had a bot for that. It really should be automatic. Dream Focus 20:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it really should be an automatic thing. Dr. WTF (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I know its a common name, but how hard did the nominator look?

What is with you and assuming bad faith towards AfD nominators? Especially your comment in an AfD that I didn't try searching for sources when I stated in my nomination that I did. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well you obviously didn't look very hard. If you have too many results showing up to filter through, then read through the article, find out what the person is notable for, and add additional search terms to sort through. Also notice that a lot of things you send to AFD get kept, and stop rushing things to AFD all the time. You are just wasting everyone's time really. No one else had trouble finding sources. Dream Focus 22:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of the things get deleted. Saying obviously is being a dick. SL93 (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

AfD for the PROD you contested

Just thought I'd let you know it's in AfD as of this morning,since you contested the PROD you might want to voice your opinion over there also. :) Salvidrim (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		I notice you have made a signifigant difference in the outcome of many Articals for deletion and have defended some of my statements, so here by award you the rescue barnstar. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Something to make your life easier!

Hi there Dream Focus! I've just come across one of your articles, and noticed that you might appreciate some help with references.

You might want to consider using this tool - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or or Special:MyPage/vector.js, then paste the bare url (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. Happy editing! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. I'm not seeing it. Looking through my preference/gadgets settings wondering what all I have to click to make the toolbox appear. Just copying the code doesn't seem to work. Dream Focus 10:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New New World Order

I was at a conference in International Relations in Taiwan about six months ago discussing a notion that was sourced in wikipedia: the "new, New World Order", as a critical reaction to the geopolitical notion of a "New World Order", coming from William Safire, Emmanuel Todd, Zbigniew Brzezinski and a few other scholars if I remember well. Can't find the page back on wikipedia so I assume it has been deleted since. I'll be looking for it in the deleted pages. What do you think ?GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Find what you are looking for in the Google news archives. Two mentions of it, and you can create an article that no one challenges for deletion. [42] Dream Focus 10:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

actually the original article was much more sourced than that. I don't want to write an article on my own and it will not be as good as the original version, which I remember was highly sourced yet still deleted. Here are the reports

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#New_New_World_Order

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_New_World_Order_%28politics%29

Anyway, I do not mean to bother you. Cheers GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Original article found

I have found a version of the article which seems as I had viewed it | here. There are more than 35 references and wikilinks. Do you think the article can be rescued? GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

With references in major newspapers such as the New York Times, I'm not sure why New New World Order (politics) was deleted to begin with. Just no one else showed up at the afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New New World Order (politics) to say anything but delete, and the closing administrator didn't look at the references themselves. Different people have used the phrase for perhaps different reasons, but the article only quotes those that use it for one particular reason. You can talk to the closing administrator, or go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Prove the reasoning for the deletion is invalid, by giving a specific definition and then linking to various news sources that use it for that purpose. Dream Focus 15:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have done just that but I may not rescue the article alone. As for the deletion, there seems to have been a fat free-fight on the French page which should never have been entried under the unhappy "Nouveau, Nouvel Ordre Mondial" with still plenty of ips voting for the keeping of the article under its English-speaking entry. To me the article is very rescuable, if not wholesale, as there is no original conclusion being made out of the reference synthesis.GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Gaming the system

Please do not attempt to influence discussion (your phrase would be "game the system") by placing inaccurate descriptions of the AfD discussion on Talk:Jennifer McCreight.

1. The outcome of the AfD was "no consensus", not "keep".
2. The AfD discussion was introduced with the phrase "I think the best result would be to make the page a redirect".

Additionally, this would constitute a personal attack.Novangelis (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

More people said Keep than delete or redirect, so consensus is already established as Keep. And how is that a personal attack? He tries to get it deleted/redirected, doesn't get his way, so tries to argue again on the talk page for the same discussion we already had. Dream Focus 02:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

An AfD is not a vote so numbers do not matter on their own, and proposing a second AfD after a "no consensus" is a legitimate action, assuming "reasonable time" has elapsed, so it is not "gaming the system".Novangelis (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There wasn't any "reasonable time" and it wasn't another AFD, it was him making the same argument on the talk page. Lets keep this discussion at the proper place. I have posted a clarification of my comments. [43] Dream Focus 02:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report

Please share your expertise at article rescue by tagging Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report for rescue. From the current discussion, I see that there are relevant sources, but right now I do not have time to pursue this particular article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for tagging the Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report for rescue. A minor difficulty is that the AfD discussion page is not tied in with the rescue template. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for all of your help. I greatly appreciate it. I also, have a question: the name of a page I created which was called the Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report has been renamed to Foster Natural Gas Report. The publication used to be called Foster Natural Gas Report. But in August it entered the oil industry and has since been renamed Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report. It is still the same publication. However, it also covers oil issues. I dont know who changed the title of the page or why. Moreover, whoever did this did not consult or even warn me of this change. Also I dont know how to change it back. Is there anyone who can please help me in this matter. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katya Foster (talk • contribs) 15:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The name has a / in it. I'm not sure if that's allowed, the Wikipedia software putting it in a subdirectory. Perhaps we could call it Foster Natural Gas and Oil Report or Foster Natural Gas [slash] Oil Report? I went ahead and renamed it back to Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report for now. If it violates a rule, someone can look it up and point to the rule. You should mention in the article what it was once called, and when they changed their name. Dream Focus 15:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Dream Focus. Concerning the title of this report, please see this discussion. Moving the title back Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report violates WP:RS and WP:TITLE. For moving, it definitely needs WP:Requested move discussion. Beagel (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dream Focus. Thank you so much for all of your help and support. I greatly appreciate all of your efforts and everything you have done for me. Calling it the Foster Natural Gas [slash] Oil Report would be fine. If its easier for wikipedia. Beagel is right, the report was once called the Foster Natural Gas Report. But in August 2011 it was renamed the Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report. The company simply has not had the time to update its website. I explained this several times to Beagel. I have also proposed to him the possibility to speak to the editor of the report. He would be happy to expalin to him where he could find more sources (even though the page has plenty of references), why the report was renamed, etc. However, he has ignored this notion and keeps insisting that it should be called the Foster Natural Gas Report - a name which has been out of date since August. I am simply trying to create a reliable page on wikipedia with all of the latest information.

Also, as was suggested, I put this information on the page so that there will not be any more confusion. I thank you for all of your efforts, support, etc. Best wishes! --Katya Foster (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that this article has been deleted. Earlier today, I was under the impression that it had been kept, but now I see it is deleted. Any comment for me?--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes reason fails, and the deletionists get their way. It all depends on the opinions of whatever random group of people show up to comment, and the personal opinions of the closing administrator. Three said keep, three said delete, so I would've thought it'd be no consensus. Dream Focus 01:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not say Keep myself. There do seem to be other issues, including the correct name of the report. Perhaps after their web site is updated, this article could come back. I kept an early version, but not the final one, because I thought it was going to survive. A sad experience for Katya Foster, but as a newbie, she did start out with a difficult task, a new article with some questions about documentation. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is back. I added my Keep. Please put back the appropriate Rescue template.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I created the Foster Report article. Unfortunately, since then it has been changed by other editors so many times that it is no longer correct nor does it make sence. Could you please delete the article. I no longer want it on wikipedia. Thank you. Katya Foster (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is kept, and if the reported new Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report becomes the documented name of the report, it will be included that way on Wikipedia. It seems to me that the article is correct and makes sense to most editors who have read it. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

RFPP

Your request should go at the top of the board. People don't usually look in the 'Fulfilled requests' section for new items that need attention. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Death Valley Driver Video Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Death Valley Driver Video Review. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Goodvac (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear dream focus

I saw you question on the page for robotics design, and that is what led me here. From your talk page I see you as someone who values what he stands for over self-indulgent pride, and though I've known people like that that to never admit to needing a compliment, you are by a long-shot the person I've read anything about here that I admire the most. I won't leave you a badge, or a kitten, but a blessing; “Y’varekh’khah Adonai v yishm rekhah. Ya’er Adonai panav elekhah vee-khunekhah. Yeesah Adonai panav elekhah, v’yahsaym l”khah shalom.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 06:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Hi, I've noticed that you have used color to indicate your user name, as stated on the article title. Can you please tell me how to do it? Abhijay ^{Let's have a chat, my friend.} 13:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Click edit at the top of my talk page and look at DISPLAYTITLE. That's what controls what's up there. Dream Focus 13:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, Ok thank you! Abhijay ^{Let's have a chat, my friend.} 14:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Rescue tag

Hi DreamFocus,

I don't think that the Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show will stay up for long because I can't find any cites that Racconish deems referenceable. There was a show in New York City [44] and [45] but Racconish deems that non-suitable for references. Anyway, from the deletion discussion, all the editors want to delete it. Thank you for trying.

Thank you.

Domenico.y (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

There was no consensus to delete it last month. This will probably end the same. I found references. Whether it convinces Racconish or not is not relevant. Things don't get deleted because one person didn't like the article. Dream Focus 23:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show

I re-added these references to the article, and decided to vote "Keep" in the AfD due to their existence.

• (April 22, 2010.) "Mobile Canvas, fusing fashion and art" Sydney Morning Herald.
• Broughton, Cate (April 2010). "Art Weaves Its Spell." The Wentworth Courier. pp 38
• (April 16-18, 2010), "What's on: Sydney." The Australian Financial Review.

For whatever reasons beyond topic notability, people continue to avoid the actual references that establish topic notability, and are basing delete votes on other, more subjective criterion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Other references I thought fine were taken out by others, as well as a list of which designers and models attended the show, and quotes from famous models that said they loved the clothing. [46] [47] Dream Focus 18:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD abuse?

Is it possible to have action against someone who abuses the AfD process? For example, if the editor nominates many articles which are clearly already well sourced and notable, and always kept by the administrator, can the track record result in a complaint of abuse of process? One particular AfD has caught my eye, but I have not looked for a track record yet. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Those who nominate the most AFDs just use Twinkle to click a button and instantly nominate one article after another. Shameful really. Tell them to please follow WP:BEFORE and then when that fails, you can take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Or.. one of those boards. If you post in the wrong one, someone will tell you where to move it to. Dream Focus 08:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Increasing portal visibility on Wikipedia

• Hello Dream Focus: Since you commented in another discussion on the Portal discussion page, just letting you know that I've started a new discussion with a specific focus upon increasing portal visibility on the portal discussion page here: Wikipedia talk: Portal - Ideas to increase portal visibility. — Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Lion's Share, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 14:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Talkback

Hello, Dream Focus. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest European law firms 2009.
Message added 06:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Think you overlooked Republic of Ireland Mtking ^(edits) 06:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Original research and Ultima article

I wouldn't say its original research to point out the appropriation of religious symbols by the game any more than it is to point out the game takes place in a Medieval European context and appropriates the historical setting, arms and armor, and magic lore. To me, both are just statements of the obvious by anyone who has played the game... and my interpretation of "original research" is anything that is involves analysis beyond pointing out the obvious. That in mind, I limited all of the statements to what I thought anyone who played the games and were somewhat familiar with religion would notice. Is it really original research to point out that the ankh is an ancient Egyptian symbol and the word "avatar" is from Hinduism? My intentiont was just to illustrate the world of the games a little further to the average Wikipedia reader, who hasn't played them and doesn't know anything about them. Currently, I think the article is lacking in that regard. It gives brief summaries of the game plots, mentions the virtue system, says that its important, and quotes people who have said its important. I don't think the average reader will come away from reading the article feeling much more informed. Brianshapiro (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of your information is blatantly wrong. The Silver Serpent isn't religious. Garriott's mother is a silversmith who made him a serpent out of silver which he has wore as a necklace for most of his life. Other parts of it which seem just as inaccurate. If you can't find a reference, don't put it in please. Dream Focus 01:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Which parts seem just as inaccurate? Anyway, the fact that Garriott's mother made him a serpent out of silver doesn't mean that the game designers weren't aware of its mythological context. Two serpents wrapping around each other (as in two serpents in the Serpent Isle), as well as a serpent coiled around a tree are common in mythology. The cover of the Silver Seed looks exactly like hundreds of illustrations that have been done over centuries. Brianshapiro (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No. In Ultima Exodus he had a Silver Serpent which blocked a dungeon, you having to get a horn to blow to free it so it could move off. Later on he decided hey, Order and Chaos, and Balance between. Decide that serpent was the Balance serpent, and without it around the other two fought each other, destroying the civilization that worshiped them. So you have two serpents, Order and Chaos, wrapped around the Balance serpent. The silver serpent was used on magical shields and other things in various Ultima games before the Serpent Isle. And Serpent's Hold got its name because of the serpent necklace he had. Anyway, Wikipedia rules are clear. If you can't find a reference for this material, then don't add it. Google around through his old interviews if you want. Or you can post and ask him on his Facebook page. http://www.facebook.com/Richard.Garriott.de.Cayeux Dream Focus 02:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yea, the serpent took on more and more meaning as the series went on, culminating with the Serpent Isle, which I think is unmistakably influenced by mythology about serpents. The entire plot behind the Serpent Isle was that this serpent symbol that was everywhere in Britannia had some deep ancient meaning behind it, and they had a deep well to draw from to illustrate that. It started earlier, with Ultima VI, though, where the drinking of Silver Serpent venom was revealed to be a ritual by the Gargoyles, as a type of sympathetic magic. I can't imagine Garriott was unaware for all the time between Ultima III and Ultima VII that serpent pendants and other serpent designs are common in Celtic inspired jewelry and have a meaning in Celtic mythology. But, I'll go with your advice and try to get that verified. Brianshapiro (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

ICS

I am slightly concerned that you may have got the wrong end of the stick regarding me. Two points:

• I have rescued an article at AfD and pretty much single-handedly took it to GA. I am not necesarily a deletionist.
• I work a lot on India-related articles, including ICS members. I know a fair amount about the sources, and also a fair amount about how poor India-related articles generally can be (a fact that has recently been demonstrated statistically at WT:IN). Recent examples of ICS stuff that I've pretty much done solo include Edward Albert Gait, Herbert Hope Risley, Kumar Suresh Singh, Edward Vere Levinge, James Broadwood Lyall, Charles James Lyall (unrelated), James Tod, Horace Arthur Rose ... and more. Technically, Singh is Indian Administrative Service, but that is yet another problem: some of the later names are misclassified & should not be in the list at all.

If this one can be rescued then great but, boy, it needs a lot of work & the sources are not great. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, an early "sort of" primary source is the India List, copies of which exist in full view at GBooks etc until at least 1905 and possibly later if a proxy is used. I had at one point thought about gutting that because there is much to be gained from it. I may still do so, as part of a jigsaw puzzle type of project, but it will take months. - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Lipodystrophy

The wiki-article is describing lipodystrophy generally speaking, and not an exact form of lipodystrophy. See section "Types."

Please note that the news article you're referring doesn't source anything to support the claim about the rarity of the condition. You're refering to the wp-policy regarding verifiability - note that that goes for referred content as well. You need to find a reliable source that supports the claim that lipodystrophy is indeed an extremely rare condition (which it isn't - see below). Also, she hasn't been diagnosed; the news article is speculative on the part that she's suffering from lipodystrophy. But even so, the news article is still speculative and needs to be backed up by a verified source.

One wide spread form of lipodystrophy (i.e. not rare) is HIV-associated lipodystrophy, affecting up to half or even more of HIV-infected patients receiving antiretroviral theraphy. "HIV-Associated Lipodystrophy - A New Metabolic Syndrome". British J. Diabetes and Vascular Disease. 2008-07-24. - Meewam (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It says it might be that, and then says that condition is rare. I quoted the exact sentence. "The condition is extremely rare and out of around seven billion people on the planet, only 2,000 are thought to have lipodystrophy". Major news sources do have fact checking departments. Perhaps they are referring to the genetic version of the condition, not the acquired form the HIV people are having. What you link to is closed to me, since I'm not going to bother registering to view it. But I believe you. I did check other news sources and found mention of it and HIV patients. The CDC or some other government organization that keeps track of how many people have what medical problems, should have the numbers somewhere. I just Googled the CDC and found too many results for me to sort through. There should be some stats listing all diseases and the numbers somewhere out there. Any ideas? Dream Focus 19:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

NPA at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Bertha (golf club)

"The problem is people like you "

I can't think of any situation on WP, except possibly in a definition of ad hominem, where that can be a useful or appropriate phrase to use. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

So its alright to insult a group of people as he did, as long as you use a different phrase to do so? That's just plain stupid. The meaning is understood either way, so no sense not being direct and honest. He hates people who created articles he doesn't like, and I hate people who mindlessly try to destroy articles because they don't like them. Dream Focus 14:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said to a 7 year old only yesterday, two wrongs don't make a right.

Besides which, Alan's complaint was worded quite correctly to address the complaint, i.e. the edits, and not the editors. Yours doesn't even try that much. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That's right. I don't try to hide what I'm saying, while he does. He complains that anyone can create an article he doesn't think should exist, since he doesn't like it, and then argue with him in the AFDs to keep it. Dream Focus 14:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Help with an AfC?

Hi! I know we've run across each other in the AfC or AfD boards, and I know that you've done a lot of work here on Wikipedia. I wanted you to take a look at an article that I've declined due to lack of sources and then kind of erm... adopted. If the claims in the article are true (and I have no reason to believe that they aren't), then this is someone that needs to be included on Wikipedia. Since I've dipped my hand so deeply into the article and helped edit, I can't in good faith approve the page. The original article writer hasn't put it back up for submission, but I wanted to let you see it so you can decide if it's something that is ready for prime time yet. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Linda wolfe Thanks! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

I found some coverage of her straight away. I'll work on the article. This isn't a problem really. The New York Times mentions her throughout the review of one of her novels. [48] Dream Focus 08:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• If her books are notable, then the writer is notable, by rule of common sense. Her official website list reviews her books have received. [49] Any book that gets two or more notable reviews, can be made into its own article, as I have done with one of them already. Dream Focus 08:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• Type in the web address of any newspaper or magazine she is said to have written for, and then search for her name. I added a link to a New York Times article she wrote. I think the article has enough references now to be put into mainspace, notability clearly established. Dream Focus 08:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Cool- I just wanted to get someone else to help out before I made the big move. Thanks! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Nanotechnology in fiction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links to Outer Limits, Replicators, Android and Knight Rider 2008

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Márquez

I noticed you voted "keep", citing as your rationale that Marquez was mayor. He was never mayor Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Simple mistake. Scratched out my comment. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Dream Focus 21:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Ashland article

Since you voted on the first AfD for Occupy Ashland, just a note that it's up for a second deletion nomination here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

New attempt to remove OccupyMARINES

Please forgive this unsolicited contact, but I note that a couple of weeks ago, you participated in a discussion at Wikipedia regarding the proposed deletion of their entry on OccupyMARINES. Of 26 respondents, 24 voted to Keep; only 2 voted Delete. The result was to Keep the article.

However, it has now been nominated again for deletion, and I thought you might be interested. Here's the URL for the new discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Occupy_Marines_%282nd_nomination%29

JohnValeron (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That is insane! 11 days after the first AFD closes as an overwhelming keep, they try to delete it again. Dream Focus 07:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Marines (2nd nomination) Canvassed template

I believe there is justification for it, I am sorry if you have take offence at my tagging your comments, the fact still remains that User:JohnValeron only posted to editors who !voted keep, and it is the WP standard {{Canvassed}} template. Mtking ^(edits) 09:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to put that under people's post. Just discuss it elsewhere, as was done. And since the remaining two people he didn't contact have now been told, no longer an issue concerning that AFD. Dream Focus 09:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability of voice actors

Hi!. I see that a while back you added "voice actors" to the list of entertainers who get automatic notability for voicing a significant role " in "multiple notable films" in WP:BIO. I want to call your attention to a thread I started on the talk page of that guideline. I'm not sure that someone hired to dub a major character in shows is automatically notable enough for a stand-alone article. I would expect that some voice actors might dub major characters in films into some languages without becoming notable in their own right. Your input to the discussion would be most welcome. Edison (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

We had various lengthy conversations about this already. Voice actors are hired for their ability to portray emotions, it just like real acting. This isn't the same as someone dubbing what a foreign leader said for a news broadcast. And I did show that many voice actors did get ample coverage in mainstream media, someone who did a beloved cartoon character decades before dies and they write a long news bit about him, etc. Dream Focus 21:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review (6th nomination)

Yes I was the first to respond on that page! Somehow I missed the DRV. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Fictional universes

Category:Fictional universes, 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) 05:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For a good debate, without rancor on the Middle-earth page, thank you. GimliDotNet (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Please use my talk page

Hello, if you have personal messages for me that aren't part of the discussion, please use my talk page. All that serves to do is distract from the topic and embarrass both of us. First, to be clear, were were absolutely right about your teletype reversion, and I didn't start the VG conversation in response to that, it was actually something I had been thinking about for a few weeks. I have been going through inbound links, trying to see how the articles are used in context, which I was led to do after working on inbound links to role-playing video game. So many of the links were "a computer game for Nintendo DS"or the like. And yes, I have been through several thousand pages in the last few days (I am still new to AWB), while also working on Sex in video games and trying to start digital distribution in video games, so I have made a few mistakes. I read and re-read the articles, so I've managed to catch most of them, but I think my average is rather high, tools or not.

"Bravo Screenfun (for computer games and video game consoles) is now * Bravo Screenfun (for video games and consoles)." - There are people that do not use the phrase "video game", but instead use "computer game" to mean the same thing (again like "a computer game for Nintendo DS"). At least one editor from the UK said that's what they always use over there, but I'm not sure how much I believe that. Regardless, I'm not sure how describing a magazine as being about "video games and consoles" is wrong. Should it be "video games and video game consoles"? Because I see that as redundant. If you do not feel the edit was accurate, I don't oppose changing it.

As far as the baseball game, Sports games#History doesn't mention any baseball games before 1971, I am unaware of any other games before that. If I made a mistake I apologize, but I don't see a reason to bring it up to the entire VG project. I understand that you do not agree with my positions, but I have intended no disrespect to you. I think it is pretty obvious that I've put a lot of effort into this area, especially the posting at WT:VG. Posting mistakes I've made in editing into the middle of a marginally-related discussion is a sure way to derail the topic completely, which is why I'm responding here. If you have anything else you'd like to point out about my edits, please do it here or on my talk page. Thank you. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If its on video games or video game consoles, then its the same thing. It can't be on one and not the other. The other one mentions a game that came out in 1987 as the first on the computer, and since it is an article about a baseball video game that came out in 1971, changing it to say this 1987 game that came after it was first video game about baseball to come out, is wrong. And you changing the wording is relevant to that discussion. You want to eliminate every possible mention of computer games and others by automatically going through and replacing them with "video" instead. Dream Focus 23:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"Baseball was one of the first-ever baseball computer games, and was created on a PDP-10 mainframe computer at Pomona College in 1971 by student Don Daglow" - this was the first baseball video game on any system, the article is about the 1971 game. Why is it useful to say it was the first computer game but not to mention that it was the first video game? Neil Armstrong was the first person from Ohio on the moon, but he was also the first person on the moon, so why be so specific when it doesn't add anything?

Video games and video game consoles are not the same thing, as a video game can be played on a computer or phone or whatever. They are different things, a broad software category and specific hardware category. If you don't agree with that, that is fine, but I was quite aware of what I wrote.

Disagreeing with my actions is very different than pointing out mistakes I've made. Saying "You want to eliminate every possible mention of computer games and others by automatically going through and replacing them with "video" instead" is very relevant to the conversation, pointing out errors that I have made is not. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pointing out reasons why you shouldn't do that. Saying video game console is redundant, was my point. As for the other, "A more sophisticated version of the system was used in the first commercial computer game to simulate an entire baseball season, Earl Weaver Baseball, designed by Daglow and Eddie Dombrower and published by Electronic Arts in 1987." was changed to video. There were baseball video games that had entire seasons before 1987, you winning one game, then going to play another. This other game mentioned in that article was just the first computer game to do that. Dream Focus 00:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, I didn't say "video game console", I said "video games and consoles", which is a list of two items, general software and specific hardware, and again this was a deliberate choice I made, if you feel this is redundant... ok? It still makes more sense then the phrase "computer games and video game consoles", which implies that it covers the games for computers, and console hardware, but not console software. As far as I know, Earl Weaver Baseball is still the first commercial video game to simulate an entire season of baseball, even though it was specifically made for a computer. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Dream, thanks so much for being our most inspiring editor. Have just noticed an admin suggesting its best not to encourage deletionists to persist in renominating articles until they get the result they want. Your message is being heard! Best wishes for the holiday season and the upcoming new year! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for [50], it's one of the things I need to take more care of. Fram (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant 10 diamond

Regarding the AfD occurring for the Brilliant 10 diamond article: I created a new page titled Yair Shimansky, and !voted on the AfD for Brilliant 10 diamond to redirect to this new article. I included all information in the Brilliant 10 diamond in the new Yair Shimansky article. Just a notification. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Manchester Township Middle School

Just started an overhaul if you'd like to help out a bit.LuciferWildCat (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Revert on WP:Bio

Hi Dream Focus. I noticed that you did this revert of a series of edits. The edits were reorganisation, using an improved template, moving in wording from other notability guidelines for consistency, rewording for clarity, and linking to appropriate guidelines and policy. There were no changes for meaning, just making clearer what was already there. Amongst that series of edits, which ones in particular did you object to, and for what reason? Perhaps we can work though them together. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You changed the meaning of it greatly. The rules of thumb part is especially troublesome. You do NOT need to meet the General Notability Guideline, since otherwise the secondary guidelines would all be useless. Some people make the horrible mistake of thinking you have to meet the GNG AND the secondary guidelines, an argument that pops up in AFDs from time to time, although thankfully most people know better. The secondary guidelines are there to show that something can be notable, without having to meet the GNG, and what exceptions do apply. Dream Focus 16:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you genuinely feel that there is consensus that WP:N can be ignored? I'm aware that some people think that, but I didn't think that this was a widespread belief.

Anyway - that discussion aside - which exact wording in the series of edits you reverted do you object to? Would you please take a look at [51], and carefully pick out what you didn't like so we can discuss it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability is established by methods other than the GNG. And any change you want to make, you need to discuss on the proper talk page before hand, and form a consensus there. I don't see anything positive your changes made. Dream Focus 18:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are not able to explain the specific wording that you are unhappy with, would you object if I restored the edits? If there is something in particular that you don't agree with, we could discuss that, but a comment such as "I don't like it/I don't see anything positive" is not helpful. Do you object, for instance, to the replacement of <references/> with {{reflist|2}}, which is one of the edits your revert undid. Also, as requested in your edit summary, I am moving this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Rescue tag

When you throw out a life preserver, you're supposed to say why the article should be rescued on the talk page or the edit summary. Neither you nor Lucifer did that. Please explain why article should be rescued on the article's talk page Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Its common sense they want help finding references. Seldom does anyone bother writing that out, since its automatically understood. I'm working on the article right now after seeing it was tagged. Dream Focus 14:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You're still essentially saying it's OK to ignore the guidelines at WP:RESCUE for placing the template. I kinda find it hilarious that you love people placing rescue templates, but hate people tagging articles in other ways Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We had this discussion many times on the Rescue squadron's talk page. Those actually doing some rescuing don't mind how the tag is placed, since its common sense they want help finding references to prove notability. The only people that ever complain are those who are trying to delete something in an article that just got tagged. And I have no problems with any tags provided they make sense and achieved a goal. Putting up tags that remain on an article for years getting ignored, and just take up a lot of space up top and make it look bad, I object to. Drive by taggers that automatically go through articles without reading them, and post thousands of tags everywhere, I also object to of course. Also people that are upset that they failed to delete an article, posting notability and other tags, even when the AFD closes as keep do to consensus the article was notable. That's just wrong. Dream Focus 16:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

ARS isn't the only people who get to decide about how the life preserver is used. Call me cynical, but I fear that the life preserver is often used less as a tool for article fixing and more as a clarion call for keepists to vote in AfD discussions. As for not have read the article when I tagged it for notability et.c., the article only had one sentence and zero refs when tagged... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you with the drive by tagging bit. Just some I notice do that constantly, without any reason to it. All the rescue tagged articles I visit, I see myself and others finding news and book sources and making valid cases for keeping. The only time I ever saw anyone just going to all the Rescue tagged articles and spamming the same generic message, was a couple of deletionists which fortunately gave up stalking us after awhile. Dream Focus 18:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've responded on my talk page.LuciferWildCat (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A tiny stub can change the world!

Dream, thought you might be intersted to hear that the wikipedia stub for Zuccotti Park was responsible for that location being chose for the world's very first Occupy general assembly. Apparently this is even though it was just a "skeletal entry" at the time. Thank goodness deletionists arent always allowed to have their way and destroy all our stubs! When far sighted historians write the history of the early 21st century, I suspect folk like yourself, the Colonel and Ikip will be listed as heroes of the Age. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

screenshot

I really appreciate your support.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I always say what is honestly on my mind. And the guy really should've posted on your talk page, instead of sending an email for something like that. Dream Focus 22:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Refs

Hi

You fixed some of the bare url refs on Gantz (live action films) yesterday, thanks for saving me the work :¬)

Can you please tell me how (or if) I can use that script to put all the refs in the same format? If you look they are a little mixed up now:

• "Gantz". Sci-Fi-London Festival. 2011. Retrieved 9 January 2012. (as they were before your fixes)
• ""Gantz" a Japanese horror action landed on Hollywood". Entertainment Today. 2011-01-21. Retrieved 2012-01-09. (after your fixes)
• EdGross - 1/22/2011 (2011-01-22). "Gantz Review & Film Clips". Comicbookmovie.com. Retrieved 2012-01-09. (after your fixes)

There is also the one with the strange beginning:

• by DangerManAwesome, January 22, 2011 6:08 PM. "Gantz: Part One Review". Twitchfilm.com. Retrieved 2012-01-09.

Is this some quirk of the way the script retrieves it, and is there any user control? After all, they should all be in the same method or it will be a lot of work to fix articles going to GA/FA reviews if the script is widely used.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone told me how to do this not that long ago. Go to http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py?page=&citeweb=checked and then enter in the Wikipedia page. It'll show all the changes, and you then click submit. It'll then give some error message so you have to hit submit a second time, then it'll work. Sometimes it'll take a few seconds before it does anything, when first searching for proper links, depending on the load time of the websites its getting information from and how much it has to sort through to find the right bit. Dream Focus 11:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Note, if you like Gantz, check out the Gantz wiki that I run. http://gantz.wikia.com/wiki/Gantz_Wiki Dream Focus 11:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Article Rescue Squadron on AfD. Thank you. —The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reopened the thread per 28Bytes ok and added a link to a diff by you.--v/r - TP 19:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of female action heroes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Katara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge != Delete

You've obviously been around a while so I was a bit surprised by this comment. A merge is a merge, not a delete. If nothing were merged it would be a redirect. You've been around long enough to understand that. Yes many of the editors, myself included, recommended deletion. Please dont forget to assume good faith. Editors are trying to gain consensus and one way to do that is to compromise.--RadioFan (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Compromise? You couldn't delete the article so you want to "comprise" and eliminate it by other means. I've replied on that talk page. We can continue the discussion there. Dream Focus 01:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you help?

Would you mind taking a look at User:Samen54? It's a new users attempt at an article deleted via AFD. I've no problem restoring it, but it needs some major fixes. The AFD had sourcing concerns that seem to have been addressed. I'm busy studying for promotion right now and I have another article someone else has asked me to write and I just can't do this thing too.--v/r - TP 03:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This guys gets coverage in various places, all of them in Spanish. Some promising sites are hidden behind paywalls. [52] Dream Focus 03:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

He's got a few sources in the new article and some on my user page but I just can't sort through it all, fix the citations, trim the article, and take it to DRV.--v/r - TP 03:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone familiar with "psiquiatra" would have to look through it. I went through Google news archive search for his name and the shorter version of "Jaume Canellas" and searched also for "psiquiatra" to try to find some significant coverage of the guy. Running the results through Google translator, and I don't see anything that other than them quoting him at times about a hospital and whatnot. Dream Focus 03:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for WP:BATTLEFIELD violation, specifically your reference to 'evil deletionists' here and at WT:ARS.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jclemens (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Normally, I would block indef for such nonsense, but I get that you've felt under a lot of stress lately. Unless consensus somehow decides that I've made an improper block, you will be off Wikipedia for one week. I encourage you to take that week to seriously reflect on the level of rhetoric you've just invoked, and how entirely incompatible it is with a collegial, community-based editing project. It bears saying that this level of us vs. them mentality is not particularly new, although I've not seen it quite as bad from you before. It is my sincere hope that you can get over the animosity you feel towards those who don't share your views and engage positively with them. Jclemens (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So they can have animosity towards all the editors who work hard on an article they decide they want to delete, but you can't have animosity to them for being such hateful people? How strange. Can't hate the haters but they can hate you? They insult the ARS constantly, and take subtle swipes at specific editors every chance they get. And there is no such thing as a battlefield mentality. Some want to mindlessly delete things they don't like, and others want to save them. No rhetoric from one side or the other will ever change that. Its just human nature to be good, evil, or misguided evil in-between. Dream Focus 13:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Dream Focus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Since when is this an actual reason for blocking? What I put on my user page is acceptable since it is my page, and related to Wikipedia, as past deletion nominations of it have proven. Also, the Article Rescue Squadron talk page I make a somewhat joking comment about the evil hordes of deletionists have finally done us in, since the template and thus the squadron have been destroyed at a rather odd AFD. How is that inappropriate? Has anyone ever been blocked for this sort of thing before? Not even a warning? Dream Focus 13:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Since when is this an actual reason for blocking? What I put on my user page is acceptable since it is my page, and related to Wikipedia, as past deletion nominations of it have proven. Also, the Article Rescue Squadron talk page I make a somewhat joking comment about the evil hordes of deletionists have finally done us in, since the template and thus the squadron have been destroyed at a rather odd AFD. How is that inappropriate? Has anyone ever been blocked for this sort of thing before? Not even a warning?[[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 13:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Since when is this an actual reason for blocking? What I put on my user page is acceptable since it is my page, and related to Wikipedia, as past deletion nominations of it have proven. Also, the Article Rescue Squadron talk page I make a somewhat joking comment about the evil hordes of deletionists have finally done us in, since the template and thus the squadron have been destroyed at a rather odd AFD. How is that inappropriate? Has anyone ever been blocked for this sort of thing before? Not even a warning?[[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 13:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Since when is this an actual reason for blocking? What I put on my user page is acceptable since it is my page, and related to Wikipedia, as past deletion nominations of it have proven. Also, the Article Rescue Squadron talk page I make a somewhat joking comment about the evil hordes of deletionists have finally done us in, since the template and thus the squadron have been destroyed at a rather odd AFD. How is that inappropriate? Has anyone ever been blocked for this sort of thing before? Not even a warning?[[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 13:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I find I can not post on the talk page of the administrator blocking me. I also can't post a reply in the discussion about me at Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dream_Focus_blocked. Lets see. Some agree my wording was obviously more humorous than emotional. Not sure how anyone could not see that. Some mention I received absolutely no warning ever for this. There was the time I commented "mindless deletionist drones" on someone's talk page [53] asking them to reopen an AFD so people who would actually do a decent job looking for sources could participate. I listed specifically why the guy was obviously notable. His work was clearly notable, thus he met WP:COMPOSER as the links I showed clearly demonstrated. Anyway, that perhaps was a bit emotional. No complaints at the time though. And no, having someone who argues with me in AFD constantly nominate my user page as well as others for deletion, a year or two ago, doesn't send me a message of any sort, since consensus was there was nothing wrong with my page. Dream Focus 13:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've brought the request to Jclemens attention, and I'll copy your comment to ani. I'll try to get things worked out to the agreement of all. — Ched :  ?  13:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Its odd he did that at ANI after blocking me so I couldn't participate in the discussion there. Be easier if my comments above could be put at the places I'm responding to different people saying things of course. Dream Focus 13:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Can someone unblock me so I can respond to the comments on at the ANI? Its ridiculous to have people take things out of context, from years past, and me not be able to reply directly to them. Dream Focus 14:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)