Naw, its fine. I was just hoping someone would make a list of every single news source in Japan, and elsewhere, which I could then check to see if something was notable or not. Manga doesn't get reviewed often in English news sources unfortunately, plus its hard to find the sales figures of anything. Dream Focus (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea. It's hard looking up notability for manga. There are some sites out there. Have you checked comipress.com or icv2.com? If the manga is licensed in English, I'm sure you can get something there. icv2 has a lot of sales figures if you need them. animenewsnetwork.com also has some good info, although you can't trust everything you see there. If all else fails, check around the good and featured articles. Sorry if I mentioned some you already checked. ~ItzjustdramaC?05:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/13916.html only shows me sales figures month by month it seems, and its a rather confusing list. Did all of those big name comics sell so poorly that month? That is shocking. Comic book writers and artists usually just have one comic a month they put out. They couldn't pay their staff if their sales were that low. Dream Focus (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to find the lists confusing too. Although I guess the sales are so low because you have to count the comic's graphic novels too. The sales are also based on sales by Diamond US to comic stores. ~ItzjustdramaC?20:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://scholar.google.com/ helps find references for scholarly topics. An editor posted a link to it in the cat training article up for deletion, there published legitimate scientific studies for this topic, and thus it convincing me it is a notable enough subject to be kept. Good place to search for other topics. DreamFocus18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's got nothing to do with the particular edit that was reverted. Yes, this is a shared IP address and a lot of the edits can be nonsense, but my edits should be evaluated on their individual constructiveness, not reverted on assumptions. --128.243.253.111 (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A friendly guest informs me how to make my name colorful
Colors in name text
Howdy; came here after reading your comment on Talk:Mason Remey mostly out of curiosity over who you be, and I noticed your 'Color text in names' section on your Userpage. I went through a similar search for info on that a while back, and thought I'd share what I discovered on it. In your preferences you can create a raw signature that is used every time you do the four tildes signature thingy. Go into your preference, check off raw signature and create one like this (look at the code by hitting Edit: DREAMFocus
Could you not get the name working? I see you tried; it doesn't work just checking the box and pasting the code? I sorted it out in the WP:SANDBOX, and it works there. See: DREAMFocus. Will it work if you don't check the raw signature box? I think it works as a signature still, but doesn't show the (talk) and (contribs) thing; but if you click on that colored name I just posted it takes you to your userpage, so I know it's close. I just tried this one which removes the Bold from the code; will it work: DREAMFocus . I know if the code isn't exactly right it won't accept it, but it's so close. DisarrayGeneral20:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good! I see what you had to do. I didn't realize the span code was necessary just for font colors. That makes sense though. You can also change to different fonts too, like cursive etc by using face="cursive", see: DreamFocus. The only thing I might suggest is to use orange instead of yellow on the letter "a", only because it's so bright it's hard to see. I changed it in my example so you could see the difference. And this is the same w/ bold added to it: DreamFocus. Have fun. DisarrayGeneral02:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ack! I tried copying the DreamFocus one, but I can't get half way through it. There is a limit to how long it can be when something is entered in. And I was thinking the same thing about the yellow. I'll change that one to orange at least. DreamFocus02:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DreamFocus 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC) HA HA! It works. Just had to put all the bold together, and I had room then. Bold open at the start, then at the end, and nowhere else, fit just fine. Thanks a lot! You've been great help. DreamFocus02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's awesome. I had to play with it one more time in the sandbox just cuz I needed to figure out if it could be done. You can change the font style by adding font face=cursive at the beginning, and /font at the end. You can also get rid of all the /span's between every single letter, and just have one at the end which saves space. See:Dream Focus. Or how about font face=Alba Super: DreamFocus. It'll do just about any font style that MS Word has. Cool huh? I've got to stop reading all this code now; I'm getting a migraine. Have fun. DisarrayGeneral09:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative to notability
Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --A NobodyMy talk01:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there - the page is still being rewritten - as you have shown such an interest in it, why not jump in and give a hand improving the article? pablohablo.23:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't know a thing about quaternions. But I don't like people moving against consensus and trying to delete something the overwhelming majority of people said to keep, thus the reason I was protesting before. DreamFocus23:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything. One editor stated during the article for deletion discussion, after most people said keep, that it didn't matter what the rest voted, he'd delete it anyway. And that's what he did. After much debate, any many people speaking out on this, the article was allowed to stay. history of it starting at March 4th, and you can see at least 6 times when it was deleted, and then reverted, until finally a stub was placed there and people worked on it a bit. If the overwhelmingly majority of editors vote to keep something, believing it has the right to exists as an article, and by consensus the closing editor says keep, then an article should be kept. DreamFocus23:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right. But the article has been (is being) rewritten, and bears little resemblance now to the article you're referring to that contained "valid information". So has any of that valid information been lost? pablohablo.23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has the exact same information. I just checked the history and compared it. All historical bits are kept, which is quite valid for this article. As for the rest, if some believe that part belongs elsewhere, so be it. Just no sense in deleting an entire article, when the topic is perfectly valid. DreamFocus23:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors suggested it, and it seemed like a reasonable solution. Further discussion regarding a potential merger should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk00:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found
Hi, Dream Focus, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!
We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
Some points that may be helpful:
Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification.
Many times we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Many of these editors are also new to Wikipedia so may see deleting "their" article as "bitey". Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages.
The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion.
Our primary work is improving articles tagged for rescue. On this template you can see a drop-down list of current articles tagged. You can install it on your own page by putting {{ARS/Tagged}}. A more dynamic list with article links and description is on our current articles page. It is highly recommended you watchlist it.
If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves.
"it was a historical and noteworthy event"? Someone's dog shitting on a subway train was a historical event? Please have a think about that concept. (Now you've had a think about it, have a look at the points on the DRV - whilst there's no problem with the event being mentioned in Internet vigilantism, it's not notable outside that context, with no sources that discuss it outside that context). Thanks, Black Kite22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It caused a large number of people to go online, and publicly shame someone for their actions. The cultural affect is that no one else would dare do the same thing, fearing the same response. That in itself is notable. And didn't most people say Keep? The consensus of the editors discussing this, not your own personal opinion, is what matters. Don't play God, and do whatever you want, ignoring the opinions of everyone else. That isn't what administrators are suppose to do, otherwise the AFD wouldn't existed at all. DreamFocus22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You hit the nail right on the head - the single notable thing about the event is the cultural effect ... which is discussed in Internet vigilantism, which is where the information currently is. And that's exactly what administrators are supposed to do. Black Kite23:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The text you placed here is largely copied from the article itself and because of that it is in itself a copyright infringement (it includes some of the problematic text). We can't use copyrighted text on any space in Wikipedia, including talk pages and talk/temp pages, unless we have permission or unless it conforms to WP:NFC. I've blanked it as well for now rather than simply deleting it. I see you have not edited this since the 9th. Do you intend to work on this further? The matter has come ripe for closure at WP:CP. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had erased all the copyrighted stuff. I searched for the part with the date between quotation marks, and didn't find anything. Doesn't matter. I kept finding contradicting information when I went looking for information, and the sites I found seem to be a bit bias. One says a worker makes enough in a month to rent a shack, and that food cost too much, and then they are cheated out of their wages as often as possible. If that were all true, then they'd have less than 0 income, and would starve to death. Also, their current minimum wage is much higher than it previous was, so it is better than they'd make as farmers. The article has potential I suppose, its just hard to find information on it. They mention a study done by someone from a university, but I searched around and can't find proof that ever existed. Seems a bit odd. Anyway, delete it if you want to. DreamFocus16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'll do so. If at some point somebody creates a clear article under the subject, so much the better. :) Thanks for your efforts to save it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have a look at Email, an existing article which covers this information in great detail? I would have voted a "keep" myself, but the subject already has an article... longer, more detailed, and better sourced. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.23:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to thank you for your voice of support in the AfD article on The Motley Moose. It is most appreciated; I am glad someone took the time to actually look over the points presented! Cordially, 137.54.5.14 (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Dream Focus. You have new messages at MuZemike's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Interesting. I looked through the Guardian article, and it is interesting to see the list of all the nations the CIA, or whoever, secretly bombed over the years, but does she say anything else? Communism is bad for business, that the reason businesses opposed it, and didn't want it happening in nations they were using for cheap labor or exploiting for farm produce or natural resources. Politicians are almost always put into office by major corporations, and thus would appoint others to do their secret bombing campaigns for them. Where does she state what you are claiming? I didn't read through the entire article, it a bit longer than my attention span unfortunately. DreamFocus22:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re:You didn't fill out all the information for a proper AFD...
You placed this on my talk page:"The CBS Mandate you nominated for deletion, has a red link pointing to the discussion for the AFD. You need to fill in whatever information it tells you to, so that something appears there." I quote the template I put on the CBS Mandate page:"Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on Talk:CBS_Mandate. I did leave my reason for deletion on the article's talkpage." 24.12.89.226 (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where do people find out about an editor running for administrator?
moved from ikip talk page.
Where do people find out about an editor running for administrator? There doesn't seem to be any general announcement anywhere, so is it all by word of mouth, or is it posted someplace? DreamFocus17:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Dream Focus. Just noticed your Village Pump proposal, and I think your Google search may not be doing quite what you want. I tried it and it didn't pull up the "fancruft"-tagged Wiki articles. Shouldn't it be more like THIS? This seems to pull up the articles your search wants to find. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RfA Thankspam
Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark22:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa
ANI Notice
Hello, Dream Focus. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talk • contribs) 05:05, 14 April 2009
Just posted there. Didn't notice that Honorverse article had also been nominated as well. I see someone has told you that might count as canvassing, which means bringing attention to an article someone might want to save, instead of letting it get deleted without anyone noticing. DreamFocus14:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mighty <div> tag
Hi - I was going to explain what I was doing on your talk page, but I had to go and do something else. Still, you seem to have figured it out! pablohablo.20:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. I only clicked a few links, but those seem notable. They aren't trying to sell anything they review, and have a nice easy to read layout. Rotten Tomatoes is already used as a legitimate source for other things, as is Ain't It Cool News. As long as each website has a fair number of original reviews for things, with valid information, then there is no reason why any reasonable person would object. DreamFocus21:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Also - since I like to keep everything together, put your response here. I have this on my watchlist.)
That is insane! If it sold that many copies, it clearly qualifies for its own article. The fact that someone else song it before hand, isn't relevant. Some people just want the fewest wikipedia articles possible, or just seem to enjoy deleting things. Total madness. Consensus is based on whoever is around at the time to comment, as well as who the closing editor is(some would've ruled no consensus and left it be). The same articles get nominated for deletion multiple times, even after consensus was keep, while other articles that are deleted, get recreated and are kept. Easier to destroy, than it is to create, unfortunately. DreamFocus18:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. Yes, the Leona Lewis version of "Run" is clearly notable, and would qualify for its own article. No-one's arguing that. The issue is - is it better and easier for our readers in its own article, or would it be better as a section of the Snow Patrol article? After all, it's the same song. This is a style issue, not a deletion one. Black Kite18:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So even if it meets the requirements, clearly notable you say, people can delete it anyway because they personally don't like it? I thought not liking something, wasn't a valid excuse for deletion. DreamFocus18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. The person above has got the wrong idea based on the deletion discussion that he mentioned (which had JamesBurns socks in it, if you notice). If he created separate pages for the "Run" single or the "Hallelujah" one, they would clearly be notable (they were both No.1 singles in the UK) and if they went to AfD they'd probably be kept. (Especially the "Run" one - after all it was more succesful in the charts than the original!) But sometimes they get merged - sometimes cover versions are better in a separate article, and sometimes they're better in one article, it's a matter of style. Remember the articles are about the song as a whole, not the individual versions. Therefore, for a song with a lot of cover versions, it'd be madness to have an indidivual article for each one. There's no question of deleting anything, just where the information is going to be. Black Kite10:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ADHD
A couple of issues:
I nominated the ADHD pages for the Medical Collaboration of the Week to bring more eyes to theses issues in Sept of 2008. Scuro recently has been trying to keep this from happening. [1]
When independent editors attempt to help resolve things Scuro has claimed they were not focusing on the issue [2]
[3] I don't see anything wrong in the links you provided. Keep this on the official discussion for it. And you aren't suppose to complain about someone like that, instead of the issue itself. Focusing on the issue, not the user, is one of the wikipedia policies. DreamFocus21:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to express your opinion one way or the other at all the List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1). Every episode has been nominated individually and there is only a few days left for the comments period to remain open. Even the pilot is up for deletion, and it was nominated for multiple awards. Your opinion one way or the other will determine if the nominator moves on to season two, and starts the process again. 24 episodes are up for deletion, some don't have full plot summaries added yet, but the vote determines whether the episodes have the right to exist to be expanded upon later. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had posted in them all. Someone should combine all nominations as one, if they are going to be nominated all at once. DreamFocus08:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1) I look over any whose link color indicates I hadn't visited that article yet, then clicked it, and from there the article for deletion nomination. I think I got them all now. Feel free to post my default response if you see any I missed, or find any other episodes that had millions of viewers and yet was still nominated for deletion. It is ridiculous we don't have a wikipedia wide vote, and determine a set standard on what remains and what doesn't, by the consensus of everyone, thus eliminating problems like this from constantly coming up. DreamFocus08:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, I am forced to follow along behind Richard Arthur Norton to defend myself against his baseless accusations and alarmism. That was nominated at the same time as all these other episodes. Please stop all the nonsense hand-waving and Bad Faith harassment.
I will continue to nominate the m individually, because indiividually is how they need to be considered. Besides, inclusionists always, ALWAYS, crush mass noms of episodes with repeated votes of bad faith nominations, ensuring that no individual episodes are actually considered, turning the arguement into some SOAPBOX mess about Notability policy being flawed because if someone bothered to write an article then surely whatever they wrote about must've been notable to them and therefore must be kept. I will nominate each, and find that the vanity presses and tv guide listings currently being used are insufficient. None of those are Reliable Sources for proof of actual Real World Notability. ThuranX (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome will be the same no matter what. As long as people who vote in one episode, notice that the same exact thing is elsewhere, they'll go there instead and say the same thing. Shouldn't you wait to see the outcome of the current season being nominated, before trying to destroy the episode articles for another season? And while you are here, tell me, do you believe that deleting articles that some might find interesting to read, you are helping the wikipedia, and if so, how? Would these articles hurt the wikipedia in any possible way, if allowed to remain? DreamFocus19:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that trolling "message" which is from this user that !voted to delete the related article. If you need, you can view it in the edit history but it's nonconstructive and quite uncivil. -ALLST✰R▼echowuz here @05:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your recent participation in several Food and Drink related merge discussion, I would like to point out several open discussions that might interest you:
I have no interest in the food topics, since I hate eating, and wish I could just inject all nutrients directly into my veins. DreamFocus11:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion it was. I thought it went to the AFD. Anyway, discuss on the talk page. Featured in that many medical journals and news media over the years, makes it clearly notable. I removed your prod like I did the last one. DreamFocus23:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dream, weren't you involved with prod work at one time?
User_talk:ThaddeusB#Congratulations.2C_barnstar.2C_and_Invitation another editor and I got to talking, he makes the incredible statment that, "I patrol every single expiring prod to look for Notable topics that need dePRODed and not exactly notable topics that should still be preserved through merges." drop him a visit and say hello. Ikip (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I brought that up before, and was told a lot of people patrol the prods. There is no way for everyone to keep watch over everything though, there just too much stuff to sort through. And most prods are done by the same small number of people that use them to avoid going to an AFD, where others might keep the article they want to destroy. They also use the tactic of just replacing an article with a redirect or "merge". DreamFocus02:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dream, my view on merging/redirecting has become more like DGG on fictional characters, my view is starting to become that when an article is merged, that article is still available, just merged.
I noticed your comments on the ultima talk page, and I was wondering what your views are. What character pages should be merged? Maybe if they had a big fictional template on the top of every character page, but that would probably never satisfy some editors who delete. Ikip (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the prods I see are done by a very few people at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Anime_and_manga and while some are new articles, most of them have been around for a rather long period of time. Its a delete, without the attention and possible protest of an AFD. You could probably check to see how many prods placed by an editor were removed, and how many went to AFD after that and survived as keeps or no consensus. DreamFocus15:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh
Whatever automated process you are using is leaving messages in inappropriate places, like the (typically non-existent) talk pages of people's userbox subpages [5][6][7]. Please exclude anything with a / from your list. –xenotalk15:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No bot. I Googled for those who had the Ultima game series template on their user page, and then clicked that and pasted the same message to them. DreamFocus15:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should follow the breadcrumb to their user talk page. FWIW, using "Whatlinkshere" would've been easier than googling. –xenotalk15:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks! I forgot about that. And I thought some people just have a lot of stuff on their user page, not realizing it wasn't a person. Sorry about that. DreamFocus15:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a huge deal. Just make sure you're at the main user talk page and not a user talk subpage, which I'm sure most people would never notice and would prefer not be created. You may wish to contact these 4 people again, I've deleted the subpages you created. –xenotalk15:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does give undue weight to the opinions of two idiotic authors. It should only list the accusations, and then counter them. Since some people believe this nonsense, for whatever reason, perhaps having read a book on it, it makes sense to have an article about it, but certainly not in the form it is now. Controversy accusations of Robert Baden-Powell might be a better name for the article. DreamFocus03:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Far from there being 24,000 google hits, there are actually only 54, and most of those are irrelevant as well. Most of the other hits are from South Park, and I don't see a source to say that the Lollipop King from South Park is anything to do with a misheard lyric from the Wizard of Oz. Therefore, this should redirect. I have undone your redirect; you may wish to revert, but the next step will be AfD. Black Kite16:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! I don't understand why you undid my edit to the Ultima (series) article. I completely agree that Ultima II mentions Earth, but edit was done because Ultima II never mentions Sosaria/Britannia. Even though this was ret-conned in later games, the game itself is centered only on Earth. I'll try to re-edit the article to reflect this, but if you don't agree, please discuss it on the article's Talk page or leave me a line.Sega381 (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked it up in the Official Book of Ultima. Lord British's castle and Lord British himself is in this game. You have magic in the game as well. So it was always in Britannia. It also mentions the destinations of the Sun, the real planets, and Planet X. 9 million B.C. Pagnea, to 2112A.D. aftermath. You could go all over, connecting various times and locations. The continents were quite different, Lord British and his castle and all the magic and whatnot, on a different looking continent than the rest. I have that old game, so I'll go look at the box and the contents and see what it says. DreamFocus23:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Searching the Ultima Online site where maps and information about the older Ultimas is at, I read that: Lord British in his castle on the British Isles in either BC or AD. (Hes a long lived SOB, eh?) Pagnea is where all the continents were still one, in the Time of Legends, I confused by that. Oh well, my mistake. Sorry. You can travel to other planets though. Mentioning how many time periods there are, I think would be a nice bit for the article. Why do I remember seeing an orc at McDonald's? They had monsters from Britannia/Sosaria throughout Earth to fight. DreamFocus23:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When she opened the time door to get to early Earth, she ripped up the fabric of space and time, bringing hordes of monsters with her to Earth, and opening time doors to various time periods. Lord British escaped to an earlier time, and then from there called forth the Stranger, who then saved the day. But Lord British wrote the history back in Britannia, so perhaps he'd not mention this other world called Earth to the people there, but still wanted to record the history. There is probably a site out there listing the dialog and manual information for all Ultima games, related to the changing history in the games themselves. DreamFocus23:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's kinda weird. I guess they didn't think it through when they created the plot for the game, and that's it. MY personal take is something similar to what you say, that Minax somehow merged Earth and Sosaria with the whole time doors mess. Though in the game manual (I have it, I just checked), there is absolutely no mention of Sosaria, and several mentions of Earth. Later manuals imply that it happened on Sosaria, but don't try to explain how Earth was thrown in; they usually don't go into much detail about Ultima II, so the reader gets the impression that Ultima II happened on Sosaria, and there was no mixup with Earth. In any event, I think it's fine the way you reworded it in the Ultima (series) article.--Sega381 (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't feel a need to start the discussion on the Talk page, since it had already been addressed on the AfD page, and there were no references to notability on the AfD page, nor are there any on the article. Your removal of the notable tag was inappropriate, since there are still no sources to prove that it's notable. Just waving your hand dismissively and saying it's obvious is not on. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The third party option thing says at the top, that you need to try to resolve disputes on the talk page, before asking for a third party's opinion. DreamFocus00:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a word with User:Asgardian, but just wanted to point you to WP:BRD. I appreciate the reversion by Asgardian wasn't the best, and that there wasn't any communication, but if you have been reverted it's a good idea to look to discuss rather than start an edit war. I'm not saying discuss discuss discuss. I mean, if you post to the talk page, and no-one responds in a day or thereabouts, sure, re-make the edit, but it's easier for outsiders to swing the lead when one party's ticking all the boxes. I appreciate that's hard, appreciate it rarely happens, but anyway, hopefully this issue will sort itself out. HidingT10:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I discussed it on the talk page, and in the edit summary, he did not. So I asked for other views. I asked for opinions before reverting him again. DreamFocus15:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. My post here was more a case of dotting the i's and crossing the t's. If you look at the history, Asgardian reverted you, and then you reverted Asgardian and then initiated discussion. If I have to explain to Asgardian the finer points of WP:BRD, it's only fair I point out that, following BRD you should really have posted to the talk page prior to your reversion of Asgardian's reversion. Now there's two ways this conversation can go. We can accept that justice has been seen to be done here and move on, hopefully never speaking of it again, or we can continue pushing the rather inane point that I have to be even-handed, even if you don't like it very much and when all is said and done, I'm trying to give you the impression I can sympathise with that view. HidingT
When someone reverts you, they should discuss why, not the other way around. There is no justice being done here. Its about the opinions of whoever is around at the time that wishes to have things done their way, or someone who is willing to argue nonstop until everyone up gives up in frustration. DreamFocus18:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you have a look at all our guidance on editing, and resolving disputes, we don't put any weight on who should start the discussion. In fact, if you look at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle it takes the position that the person who has been reverted should start the discussion, hence my message here. So that's also why I can't accept that there is no "justice being seen to be done" here. As I have said, I fully understand your frustration, it is hard to accept at times that Wikipedia is a collaboration, and yes, there are editors who will engage in various methods in the mistaken belief that it will get their edits to remain in Wikipedia. Anyway, I hope we can avoid being editors who are willing to argue non-stop, and we can chalk this one up to experience and perhaps let it flow over us like water will a duck's back. Best regards, HidingT09:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, everyone has a dispute with that one editor. I see people arguing with his edits on many comic book articles, everywhere. Two editors disagreed on something, I posted in the project for comic books to gain additional opinions. You make it sound like something devious was going on here. We should avoid arguing nonstop? What the hell? Was anyone doing that? Other than you coming here and talking nonsense at me? DreamFocus10:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I have given the impression something devious was going on, I apologise. You seem to be misunderstanding me, so let me try again. There is a dispute going at Secret Wars, and I have pointed out the dispute resolution processes to both parties, to ensure everyone is aware of them. If you could clarify how it is nonsense to remind you of the dispute resolution, I'd be grateful, and I would also be grateful if we could find a way to keep this conversation from escalating. You are obviously becoming frustrated, maybe you should think about what it is that is frustrating you and try and avoid it. I don't think anyone is arguing non-stop. My words were not to be interpreted as a challenge in any way, but more along the lines of rapprochement. It was my attempt to say something like, how about we just let this conversation end and say bygones, or whatever the appropriate term is in your part of the world. I've complied with the need to treat each person in a dispute accordingly, and you've complied with the part where you acknowledge that yes, maybe it could have gone a different way. We're all well aware of the issues certain editors create, it's working out how to deal with those issues that is harder. The current method is for everyone else to play by the book. It makes it easier to spot trouble-makers. I hope you can catch my drift this time. If not, please assume good faith and accept I'm only here to help, even if it does feel to you like it is either misguided or unwarranted. If you really do feel it is the latter, feel free to archive this thread in your preferred method without reply, to save further frustration. HidingT11:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't turn AFD into a battleground. Next time just post why you want it kept, instead of attacking TTN. Also the "leave it be" nonsense really isn't needed. Articles are for everyone to edit. If someone wants to send something to AFD, they have every right to. They shouldn't be attacked by you just because you have issues with the nominator. Remember: AFD is for discussing why the article should be kept or deleted, NOT a place to badger the person that started the AFD in the first place. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. You have an editor who nominates hundreds of articles a month for deletion, and just as many more replaces with a redirect without discussion whenever possible. And how can an article be for everyone to edit, if the article is no longer there because of an AFD? Some like episode and character articles, others do not, and it all comes down to some trying to save them, while others destroying everything they can. You have editors who have stated their hatred of such articles, and their desire to eliminate them, going after those that have the fewest edits or page views first, and then working their way up. It isn't about enforcing the suggested guidelines or any policies, it is about someone just wanting to eliminate something they personally don't like. I believe my statements, mentioning how one of the most high rated television shows ever, M.A.S.H, had the same problem with him trying to delete them, was perfectly valid. DreamFocus02:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes TTN nominates things a lot, but that doesn't justify you turning AFD into a battleground. Comments at deletion debates should be strictly about the article, not the nominator. So leave the nominator alone next time. RobJ1981 (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. If you have an issue with the nominator, notify an admin or use the correct notice board. Don't disrupt the deletion process just because you have issues with the nominator. RobJ1981 (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About reference you added to Na Na Na Na
The reference you added to Na Na Na Na (deleted by User:TheFarix) lead me to edit Template:Ann/sandbox. If my edit has not been undone you will see the result on the next line.
They decided that since anyone can edit the encyclopedia part, that meant it wasn't a good reference. Of course since the overwhelming majority of manga doesn't get reviewed anywhere, especially in English, that means members of the Wikiproject dedicated to manga, end up deleting most of the articles. Tragic really. Also very, very stupid. Remember, WP:IAR is a policy that says ignore all rules, while the notability thing is just a suggested guideline you can easily ignore. Don't ever let anyone else convince you differently. DreamFocus01:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dude...
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted his disruptive edits, and disguised it on the talk page. You can not merge without putting a tag first on the affect articles, and discussing it. DreamFocus17:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no guideline requiring a merge discussion Dream. It's a suggestion, and preferable to an edit war, but not a necessity as you seem to think. The better route would have been to discuss it. What I find puzzling though is why you're protesting it: it's now a case of overlap, and no information was lost in the merge. Is it because you genuinely feel it should stay or because of the whole "deletionist"/"inclusionist" hubbub you go on about?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was split for a reason. It was fine in its own area. And not all information will be preserved. And I did discuss it on the proper talk page. DreamFocus18:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What information wasn't? The only thing omitted was the indepth discussion of the game's graphics, but with re-releases of titles and changing standards that is the most moot point to argue something on for reception. If something was missed just point it out.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thinking most of the information in the main article would be deleted in time, it best to keep that in a proper side article. That what usually happens with these sorts of things. But this time it seems to be a different case, judging by the history. Only the Monster section has been mass destroyed by a merger [8], nothing to do with this article though. Alright. Read through the information, and its fine. No further arguments for now. If someone tries to "trim down" the main article though, then it'll need to be restored as a side article. DreamFocus18:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I take it you're okay with this particular merger and it can proceed then? (As it stands I strongly doubt we'll see any trimming, the prose might need tidying but the information is rounded and strongly sourced).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, go for it. No further objection from me. And they did change the WP:MERGE guideline, it originally requiring a tag before hand, months ago when last I read it. No guideline was violated, and no relevant content lost. No objections. I should've read through things better this time around. DreamFocus18:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template for deletion
Friendly heads-up{{Imagemap}} is deprecated and nominated for deletion. It has been superceded by changes to the File namespace and I wanted to let you know, since you have a transclusion on your userpage or user talk. If you need to respond to this message, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New section Why does your user talk have no "new section" tab? A page that is 155 kB is going to be browser-breaking for some users. Please respond on my talk at your earliest convenience. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. I honestly stopped looking at that page when the matter was pretty much dead and A Nobody hit. I'll admit though the list needs heavy maintenance, there's a lot of material there for one-shot characters that could be discussed in briefer details (the dead meat members of the S.T.A.R.S. team), though in the same stroke Rebecca seemingly lost her reception during the re-merging of her article which while brief was a valid start. I'll take a look at it later, see if a middle ground can be reached...work's been on my back lately.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I archived about half of it already. Might get around to doing more later, but no real reason to. Even someone with a primitive 56k modem connection can load it up without much delay. DreamFocus14:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to know why you deleted erie anime experience page, if you don't allow anime convention pages then delete them all not just the ones you dislike. Now I know why the trade school I went to said not to trust anything on this site. You say to keep it neutral, the page was wrote with facts, that can be found on the EAE site as well as animecons.com and many more. I should tell everyone that Wiki is to bias and only allows content that the Admins want/like and heck with everyone else.
(Kenshinkyo (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
File source problem with File:Giant ant fossil.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Giant ant fossil.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
Yes; in fact, that's exactly what I was looking for. However, I don't think that the image was released into the public domain by the author, unless you can show a site proving that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the other pictures of a hummingbird held up next to the fossilized ant were released into the public domain. The official site for them shows that. That's why another hummingbird comparison picture was used to replace mine in the article. Thus there is no reason to waste time with this any further. The image is no longer being used anywhere, so no reason to keep it. DreamFocus06:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They were deleted, despite evidence of notability, and this deletion was upheld at deletion review. Don't think you can do deletion review twice. Isn't there a speedy delete for articles recreated that were already deleted? DreamFocus20:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not misreading
If you read the history from that thread, you would see that, from his own statements, he is frustrated. It is starting to show a bit more in how he is phrasing things, and I was giving him a light reminder. Him and I are also not in disagreement at all.
Your response to me, I was referencing, "As for your edit summary, 'Not about winning', that's not what this is about. Lets stay on topic though." As I indicated, that was not directed at you, and it seemed to upset you that you had read it. Besides, there is no harm in a gentle reminder now and then, to relax.
May I ask why you are so concerned with how I have been editing?
Some people go out of their way to pretend they are acting nice, while at the same time trying to paint their opponent in a negative light. Doesn't seem to be what's going on here though. I checked your recent contributions to make certain. Didn't see any real problems, just checking. Different ways to read things. DreamFocus06:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yeah. It happens. I use the smiley to take the sting out of words that could be construed as criticism. However they are meant, and no matter what you put around something, that smiley face always seems to lighten the mood. If only so people are like, "wtf? A smiley? On Wiki? That's absurd!"
As described in Help:Merging#Performing the merger, a link to the original article must be provided. It would be appreciated if you could make a list of article names and place it on the article's talk page. Are they simply the links in Template:The Humanx Commonwealth? I'll take it from there.
It looks like you merged some of these while their AfDs were still open, which should be avoided. The AfDs I saw were closed as merge or redirect, so no major action is necessary. You may be interested in the discussion WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD.
If not a single person says keep, then you can assume its not going to be kept. If there was the slightest chance it would be kept, then I wouldn't have had to do this. Also, most articles weren't but a paragraph long. Only one article was of reasonable size, and I was the only one who said Keep, so I'm sure it has no chance at all. And yes, all the Humanx Commonwealth articles I am aware of, past and present, were listed on that template back in March. [10] If you could handle the red link stuff I can't access, I'd appreciate it. I don't know how else to find them all, since those deleted won't appear in any searches. DreamFocus09:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. this is odd. [11] Because the content is already found elsewhere, shouldn't be a reason for a decision. I wonder if it would've ended the same way otherwise. DreamFocus09:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the main article had the exact same information as the races article. The planet section it had, before I deleted it, was the same as the planet article. And I search for a sentence in the Aann section [12] and don't see it listed anywhere but Wikipedia, and 90 places that copy Wikipedia articles word for word. No reason to have the species information listed on the main article. I'm thinking it should just be used for listing the books, describing the series, and mentioning what the commonwealth is. I tried getting feedback on the talk page[13], but no one is saying anything, so I'll go ahead and do that now. DreamFocus06:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles?
Hi, I'm just interested to know if you do much article work, or stick to AfDs? You didn't mention any article work on your user page, which was pretty lengthy. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can check my contributions here although that is a lot to sort through. I never really saw a reason to list articles I've worked on, or created, since if someone is interested in something, they'll probably find it, and won't care who wrote it. Unless they are out to get me. You know, argue about something, then decide to instantly go to something I created and nominate it for deletion. I created new articles at times, add to existing ones, and read a lot of stuff that interest me. Plus I'm the administrator of the Gantz wiki, doing a lot of work on it, after some evil deletionists decided to mass murder the content of the wikipedia Gantz article and destroy a perfectly legitimate side article I had created. DreamFocus11:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to. I've only just managed to get three of the four books. I'll try and find the various resources soon. - NemFX (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback?
Hey, DF, I've seen you around a lot, and you seem like a good, serious contributor, so I was surprised when I saw this and this. Not because they were bad reversions, because of course, you did good work there. But it was too much work. And then it occurred to me—you don't have rollback, do you? I can't imagine why not. It makes vandal reverting so much easier and quicker. Have you thought about getting it? Unschool02:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion! I just posted on the talk page of the administrator Philosopher, asking for the ability. It would save a lot of time dealing with the forces of evil that threaten the sanctity of Wikipedia. DreamFocus14:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may want to look over Logan Lynn's article discussion page again..you inadvertently cracked me up! --XxSoulSurvivorxX
Manon Batiste
I saw your comment on the AfD and thought you should know RealPoor isn't actually a magazine: it's effectively a blog and an unreliable source. User:A Nobody isn't bothering to check what sources he's using for reliability I've begun to notice, as he cited That Guy with the Glasses as a source in another article. Not saying "VOTE DELETE" or whatever, just suggesting you might change your rationale there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. That site encourages illegal downloads, people asking for things on their front page. I rewrote my reasoning why she is a notable enough fictional character to deserve her own article. Hopefully if its kept, no one will go insane, ignore the majority, and redirect it anyway claiming consensus that clearly wasn't there. DreamFocus18:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record the issue with the TGWTG source was that it wasn't the host himself who made the list, but one of his hostees (I'll have to double check but I believe it was Film Brain under a pseudonym). Though I'm not sure how well anything from the site at all would fly at a FAC for reliability. (see arguments against Angry Video Game Nerd, Screwattack :\)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for Manon...eh, if her article can be improved I'm all for it. I'd offer to dig for sources but I have a cleanup with the soulcaibur characters to contend with currently, working out which to spinout from the character list once sources are found...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! I tried to submit, it said someone had just posted, so I copied my stuff over... I hit the wrong submit button by mistake I suppose. I thought I had added my bit after your recent addition. Sorry about that. DreamFocus18:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Human suit
in connection with this, see my comment at WT:NOT, & the request now at deletion review. I apologize for missing it in the first place. The thing to do, as is often the case, is to make a new one, but better. Nothing here stays dead, if people care enough. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Human_disguise The request is for something else though. And if the number of published sources calling it a human suit, and describing it clearly as an alien living inside of it to pass as a human, didn't convince people to save it before, I don't think there is any hope for it. It all depends on who is around at the time to comment, and the opinions and methods of the closing editor of course. DreamFocus00:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to follow-up on your question\comment regarding the availability of resources indicating that his patents are being used commercially. I found the following link originally published by First Data. 1. Do you think this would suffice?--JAF 05:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Inventing something important for a major company to buy and make use of, seems notable. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I Google his name and that company [15] and it seems he is suing them also. Didn't get paid enough I suppose. DreamFocus05:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In your edit here you introduced an error. Captain Robau is asked "What is the current stardate?" not "What year is it?". I attempted to correct it with the results you can see here. I am waiting for Ckatz to respond to the message I left him. Please do some research into Star Trek before you edit any more Star Trek articles. -- allen四names11:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its the same thing. And my edit was far superior to what was there before I changed it. And my words were "When he asks what year it is, he finds he has been sent to the past." I didn't quote him at all, just stated he was asking for the date. Stop being so rude. DreamFocus15:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inre THIS... I agree that the close and delete might have been a bit pre-emptive, but you might otherwise consider asking for userfication with permission to recreate, or having it sent to WP:INCUBATE for input and improvement by others. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.17:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
]][reply]
Hi
You have previously offered your thoughts on an article [16] and some people appear to have an interest in repeatedly deleting certain pieces of information officially citing notability. Would appreciate your thoughts on the issue.Fragma08 (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of African American neighborhoods. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replacing the AfD notice that the original author removed from this article - I hadn't noticed it had gone. How about removing the signature he keeps adding as well? I'm at serious risk of 3RR if I do so again, but he has major ownership issues and he needs to realise how things work around here. Cheers. andy (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I was wondering if you would help me finish up the RFC/U regarding User:Asgardian. I'm going to put the RFC into place before the end of the year, so it would really be great if you could provide any help you are able to give. What I need most are diffs displaying the disputed behavior. I have some already here, but could use some more. I mean just a list of diffs to put in the first five or so categories I listed there, as I already have more than enough illustrative examples. Anything that you think is edit warring (mutiple similar edits to the same article in the span of a few days), incivility, inaccurate edit summaries, or other similar behavioral problems. List them on the RFCU talk page - just the diffs is all I need, because I want people reading the RFC to be able to draw their own conclusions.
Also, I have come up with a desired outcome and a description of the case based on the comments that have been gathered, and I would appreciate any responses to that on the talk page.
Because you stated your intent to certify the Asgardian RFC/U, I am letting you know that it has begun. If you still wish to certify, you may do so now.
Also, you made statements on the RFC draft talk page pertaining to the case, and I tried to reflect all the major points in my summary. If you feel there is something you wanted to be said that I did not cover sufficiently (or accurately enough to reflect your viewpoint), you may post an "Involved user view" below Asgardian's response section to elaborate. You may wish to copy, whole or in part, any previous statements you have made (with or without diffs or links) into such a new section as you desire. I have included a link to the draft talk page, so that interested parties may view the statements gathered there, if you do not wish to repost them.
I agree with your viewpoints on the Pac-Man 2600 discussion, and added some stuff myself that I gathered from just asking people who were old enough to remember the game. A few things I learned is stunning:
The "crash" didn't actually happened at all, and what is lied about as the "crash" occurred in 1984 (according to Computer Chronicles/Net Cafe host Stewart Chiefet).
People, just like you, actually liked the game as a child/teen/twentybopper and had no ill in regards to it.
Tom Frye never became a millionaire from the sales of the games, because whether it be 12 million or 7 million carts sold, after taxes, he was no longer a millionaire.
I agree with a statement you made that Wikipedia is administered by shut-in nerds who circle-jerk the articles to their own ends. WND has uncovered that Wikipeida has false information numerous times, and other sites have reported that only like 1,400 distinct IPs have been discovered to editing the articles.
You may wish to report to WP:ABUSE and have one of the users over there look into possibly reporting their ISP. You can contact User:Thorncrag if you have any questions on how to report (as I had to recently do with a rather extremely disruptive user). I will have to warn you, however, that British Telecom, the ISP listed there, is not terribly responsive to abuse reports, at least from what I've been told. Hope that helps, –MuZemike21:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting no reaction towards his actions, they all reverted within seconds after making them, and no one amused but himself, perhaps he'll stop. If not, I'll go through the effort and try to get something done. I'm sure they record internet activity of everyone, most ISP spying on customers for advertising purposes. Hmm.. just Googled for that. Apparently they did that as a test run [19] once. DreamFocus02:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, regarding your desire to report this user, I can certainly file a report; however, you should know that we haven't actually processed any reports in several weeks do the the processing being revamped. Cheers. Thorncrag 07:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Just hope someone looks into this, and there is a way to stop the person. Even if they get bored and quit for awhile, they'll eventually just come back again and do the same thing. DreamFocus11:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about this. When I see the word 'forum', right away I assume it's something more like 'OMG AvaTaRR rul3zzzzz d00d!!!1!!eleven!!!' , not the official Ubisoft FAQ. I
should've been more thorough. Again, my apologies, and happy editing! --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now?21:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this AFD discussion where you requested scans of a specific article in the Nov. 1984 issue of COMPUTE!'s Gazette. I have a scanned PDF of this magazine and will post the article somewhere when I get a chance. Was there anything else in old Commodore computer magazines that you needed? *** Crotalus ***15:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the article in question. It discusses Shannon and gives a bit of background on him, but doesn't mention the claim that he was the first author of BBS software for the VIC-20. *** Crotalus ***14:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Butter's Bottom Bitch (again)
I tried to follow what I believe was agreed on as a compromise on Talk:Butters' Bottom Bitch, but merely get reverted and get these[21] type of messages on my talkpage (which I find somewhat condescending). Could you have another look at the discussion?
I have commented. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I don't think there is any reasonable doubt of who the character was. DreamFocus04:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Black sitcom. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black sitcom. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a previous AFD, you can contact everyone in it to participate again, and it will end the same way. Works every time. DreamFocus00:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in the recent RFC/U regarding Asgardian. The RFC has been closed, and the case is now at arbitration. You are neither required nor requested to participate, but you may view the initial statements for the case (please do not edit that page), and you may view the evidence presented and add more evidence if you wish, or simply follow the case. BOZ (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most closing administrators go through a lot of AFDs at a time, and don't waste time looking deeper than they have to. Some said notable, some said not, so there was no clear consensus one way or another. So no consensus was the proper thing to do, the article thus kept. DreamFocus04:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! I'm currently discussing another matter with the editor, but will approach him on it as soon as the first is resolved. Thanks for your thoughts and happy Easter!! Arbitrarily0(talk)15:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my original conversation with Jay still has not ended, but I've mentioned the Xlear issue to him as well. You're welcome to comment, but my guess is that it'll just lead to deletion review, as we said above. Just letting you know that I haven't forgotten, cheers! :)Arbitrarily0(talk)17:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment has appeared in the thread below the one I think it was intended for. I'd move it up but thought if you did you would know where in the discussion you would want it placed. SGGHping!19:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. There was an edit conflict when I tried to post it, and I ended up trying again and putting it in the wrong area. I have corrected it. DreamFocus19:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have a very expansive user page discussing this issue, as I wrote on ANI, what do you think?
Too many editors find that deletion "helps" articles, and are too willing to take credit for an article being improved after it is up for deletion, when, in fact that deletion discussion shows a failure to communicate and reach a more amicable, and less disruptive solution. This flawed attitude is no accident, in the BLP madness debate, Jimmy Wales praised editors who deleted several hundred articles out of process. AFDs have probably gotten more cordial, not because the cordiality has improved, it is because those who do not share this prevalent view have left or have been driven off. This is like the September 11th edit warriors taking credit for the peaceful way in which September 11th articles are now, the reason is because arbitration made a content decision, allowing anti-conspiracy theory editors, many who were admins, block and silence the opposing side. Okip 12:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and support. you will be happy to know that I accepted jclemens offer to help and offer advice. :) I would like to think that A Nobody could have avoided his ban if he would have done the same. Okip 23:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dream Focus. I'm afraid I've got to take issue with one of the sources you cited in Tomato, specifically this article from the Chester Progressive. Given how well it fits with a lot of the Wikipedia article, I strongly suspect that the writer may have been using Wikipedia in the first place (it wouldn't be the first time local media has been lazy). Obviously we can't cite something that used Wikipedia in the first place. For now, I've marked it as possibly not being a WP:Reliable Source, but do you think you could find a better source to back it up? Thomas Kluyver (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would a printed newspaper not check its facts first? And it was published in 2008. Was the information in the article at that time? I'll check the article's history and see. Google news search says that is a reliable source for news. DreamFocus15:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. You are wrong. The Wikipedia article at the time it was printed [22] did not mention the tomato coming from a yellow fruit at all, nor had anything about lead in it until I added that fact from the newspaper source. That proves it didn't come first from Wikipedia. The third thing I used them for a reference for is the largest tomato plant ever, that a record found anywhere such records are kept, the information not likely to have been copied from the Wikipedia. DreamFocus15:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I agree, it couldn't have taken all of the facts from Wikipedia, but it could still have had some. I think it's also relied on The Tomato in America, which is referenced in the Wikipedia article, hence the similarity. Newspapers should check facts, but they don't always, and little local papers might be less stringent than major news sources. I don't have a citation, but I know papers have copied incorrect info from Wikipedia before. Also, a 'trivia' type page like this is less reliable than a story about the fact in question. I'll see if I can use the Tomato in America instead for some of those claims, but it doesn't have the heaviest tomato record. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the references to it, did not come from Wikipedia first, that all that matters. And Wikipedia is verifiable, not truth. That's one of the founding policies/principles. And what sort of book about tomatoes wouldn't mention what the largest one on record was? The department of agriculture's website probably has that information, they keeping track of things like this. Anyway, please remove your unreliable source tags, unless you have a legitimate reason for doubting that information provided, and the credibility of this particular newspaper. DreamFocus04:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bad source @ FarmVille
Hey Dream. In a recent edit to the article FarmVille, you added some criticism about the game. However, the information was not true. The reference you added as the source of information was a NewsBiscuit article; NewsBiscuit, however, is a satirical news website where all its content is basically comedy and entertainment and not a real source of info. It has since been removed by an anon. editor. Thanks, ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs02:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Sorry about that. I was looking up information about protest about genetically engineered crops, and I came upon it. DreamFocus04:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussion: Comparison between roman and han empires
Thank you. I spent a moment clicking the Google news search at the top of the AFD, and found four notable news sources discussing the guy's accomplishments. This is the third time someone tried to delete the article, despite the news coverage. DreamFocus19:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you check if creating a Wikia account is okay with A Nobody? Debugging will be much easier if I can work on the desired wiki. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can register on a Wikia. Once you log in to any Wikia, you are logged in to all of them. Anyone can start a Wikia for almost anything they want. I doubt A Nobody or others would object to this. You can even copy a page to your user or talk page on the Wikia, and test it out t here to see if it works first. DreamFocus04:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think if the link is red, it normally stays that way. If it was relevant to the Wikia, it'd be copied over. If its added later on, it can be changed quite easily, so I don't see that as a problem. With the list wikia, its nothing but list, there no reason why anything would exist there. Its just list linking to items back on the main Wikipedia. DreamFocus04:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Thanks. I'm make sure everyone over there in list world knows about it. There should be a place on the main wikia site to announce scripts, and even here on the Wikipedia, wherever the export page is at, for transwiki'ing things, a note about it would be useful. DreamFocus06:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw Bali ultimate there, and was thinking of him. He does in fact do things just to irritate ARS members, every chance he gets. The only article he ever tagged for Rescue, was one about people having sex with animals who were also into animal rights. I and everyone else participating said delete to that article, it obvious a prank, as evident by the way it was done. He does stuff like that, then acts all innocent. AniMate is also one that argues at times, although not in the immature way that Bali ultimate does. And usually you see others appearing to take a shot at Okip and others whenever their names come up, so I'm sure they'll be around. I have no idea who you are though, so I was referring to you. DreamFocus03:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should've broken my statement into two paragraphs, since only the first part is directed at you. You seem to have gotten emotional and misused your tools for something which was not a valid reason to use them.DreamFocus03:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notice the many times banned and admitted sock puppet and troublemaker Jack Merridew posted there. His comments are amusing to himself, he calling to ban someone for doing something he has done himself repeatedly, only far worse. He brags on his user page about being the most successful sock puppet ever. I never understood how he kept getting unblocked time and again. DreamFocus03:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you admittedly have the wrong person, the appropriate thing to do is to strike out the comment and correct it. I honestly don't care but it doesmay weaken your argument otherwise. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As to who chooses to comment, Okip's similar habit of criticizing everyone was something I questioned and eventually it does become tired. You may have a point, you may not, but do you really think the best argument is to say "look at the people who support this, so this must be a terrible idea"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was pointing out that they weren't sincere in what they were saying, they just out to get the guy. Many people don't comment if a lot of people have already stated they support the opposite. Also those who don't know the situation may be influenced by what others are saying. And if a judgment is made, then whoever makes that final decision, should realize that many supporting it are just doing so for personal reasons. DreamFocus06:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it bothers you, I went ahead and clarified it here: [23]. Everyone's feelings are always valid. You should never hesitate to say what is on your mind. DreamFocus06:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zion Covenant Series
Hi, the totals are right, because if you look at the last two votes on the AfD, even though they've got "Keep" in bold they both say that this only refers to the series article and that the individual books should be merged into it. I should've made this clearer in my close, so I've re-written it. Black Kite (t)(c)06:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of annoyed that the work I did for the NINA album was all for naught. I really didn't want to have it relisted, but they would have just kept trying to redirect it if I didn't and then somehow gotten me into a 3RR situation. SilverserenC06:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would matter now. Perhaps if done before it closed again. AFD are always done by the consensus of whatever random group of people find their way there, and the opinions of the closing administrator. Even if an article survives, the same people usually just nominate it for deletion months later, or one of their friends does. I'm glad to see another reasonable minded editor like myself participating in so many AFDs. Too bad there aren't more of us out there. Most of the articles we participate in do get saved though, so overall we've done some good. DreamFocus07:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! I just thought I'd mention that Kharsag is now being nominated for deletion (and rescue). I would very much appreciate your thoughts and vote on the matter in it's discussion page. Thanks. Paul Bedson (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. I have to laugh at how some of the !votes are, in substance, "let's hope we get more deletion-minded voters this time"--Milowent (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to keep track. There were 18 people I contacted, and one I didn't because I noticed he got a message from a bot already. DreamFocus14:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peer reviews are for the good article ratings only, correct? I never pay attention to those things, and I doubt most people notice them at all. Only people who are interested in the subject should ever be involved in that. Otherwise you have people who don't read things through, and instead of judging the article on content, what information was included and how well was it explained to those interested in the subject, they instead just want it to look a certain way, usually short as possible with lots of quotes from people in the news media, and a thousand and one citations few if any will ever bother reading. DreamFocus20:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'd try to save them all if I had the time. You might want to check out http://ghostadventures.wikia.com/wiki/Ghost_Adventures_Wiki or http://list.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page for places to restore the list. Some people just liking reading through list of everything, thus the list wikia exist, always something new to learn about various shows, or whatnot, and there is a wikia for the show Ghost Adventures, although its a young one someone just started in February of this year, so not a lot of information on it yet. DreamFocus01:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do I go about rallying some troops for the [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muir_Skate_Longboard_Shop|Muir Skate Rescue]? More jerks are saying to delete it and although I made a great point at the bottom of the page, I'm worried we won't get enough keep votes. PÆonU (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't allowed under the canvassing rules. You can post in any wikiproject dedicated to the topic, or contact everyone who participated in a previous AFD, but that's about it. And it isn't a vote... well, actually it usually closes according to whoever has the most votes, but not always. If enough people believe the coverage and whatnot prove its notable, it'll end in no consensus. DreamFocus20:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing? I was asking if there was a way to get some attention from other rescue squad member. Really, that's considered canvassing? It's about as harmless as adding a rescue tag! PÆonU (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Why is it we don't show any pictures of Mohammad", of course we have pictures of Mohammad, even though complaints about it come by the truckload. There are a huge amount of those pictures, some of them quite offensive to some people.
Where Wikipedia is censored by law, it is by the law of where the servers are located, and that's because there isn't any other choice.
Apart from where required legally, Wikipedia is not censored. At all. Period.
Sending messages to Jimbo's talk page won't do anything to this issue. Decisions on policy are made by the community, not by him.
He made the decision recently to eliminate certain images, not the community. And I'm asking his opinion, because I'm curious of it. This is all related to his recent actions. There are still some images out there which should be eliminated. DreamFocus02:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. You should know, though, that he recently forfeited his right to delete images, along with quite a few other rights, and it looks like the previous deletions are going to be undone. --Yair rand (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Yes. It seems to me that the closing admin imposed their own opinion on the result, which was clearly not supported by consensus. The one strong Delete vote was changed to Keep, so there was little of a Delete argument left. Link me to the DRV when you get it set up. SilverserenC10:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just commented, after searching the news and finding some decent results from reliable news sources. [24] Too bad I didn't notice that before hand. Had I realized the result I had found and mentioned was a college newspaper, I would've looked harder, instead of assuming I had found enough proof of notability then. DreamFocus22:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was not enough feedback. When I started a few weeks ago, there was no discussion for either articles. Narthring contacted me, but only to put in a standard welcome to Wikipedia. I reached out to Reyk for advice.
I felt it was a matter of courtesy to let everybody who had edited the articles know of my intention to massively overhaul the articles. You found out because I put notices in the WikiProjects that had said the articles were covered by the projects.
It won't be just the external links.
Yes, I intend to work on the whole article. However, I first want to get opinions. For example, I like the idea of merging the two articles, but I want to make sure there is no dissent. If the two articles are to be merged, the logical first step is to merge the two articles and then work on the combined article. It doesn't make sense to work on the two articles in parallel and then combine them. I hope that answers all of your questions.Vyeh (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found out because you posted on the talk page of someone I had on my watch list, then I checked your contributions and found you did that to a large number of people, some of which posted on your talk page they didn't want to be bothered. If you believe the article's should be changed, post on the talk page exactly all of what you want to be done. There is no possible reason to merge two articles which have enough valid content to fill themselves. But we'll discuss that over there. DreamFocus17:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some other editor (DustFormWords) have deleted the non-official external links. I have outlined the history in the talk page of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. I may not have liked the non-official external links, but I did not put a notice on the External links/Noticeboard (it was JohnnyMrNinja who did so). Vyeh (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a strange thing I haven't seen before. But I guess the AFDs are the same. If someone's work is notable, then they are notable. DreamFocus21:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw what Firefox said about spelling(incorrectly spelled words unlined in red) and changed it. Didn't realize either way was fine. No big deal. DreamFocus02:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but at the same time the article evolved using the British spelling. So, perhaps it is best to bring it up on the talk page before changing. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck on the restoration; I am rooting for you, and I look forward to seeing the article reintroduced to the main space in the future. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just wanted to import it to the Manga Wiki which I recently adopted. http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Neon_Genesis_Evangelion_RE-TAKE Working on it over there now. Unless it somehow gets mentioned in a publication somewhere, and very few places bother mentioning any manga at all, let alone a fanmade one, I doubt it'll be able to survive on the current Wikipedia. DreamFocus08:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well at least you managed to find a good home for the material then. Can't say I blame the decision, Wikipedia just isn't a happy place for fiction-based information anymore. All the same though, I hope it works out for both you and the manga over at the new place! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose fans of the series know what sarna is. Two wikis for the same thing? The least popular one should be turned into a redirect. They do that sometimes, especially if the other one isn't active. DreamFocus08:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Concerning your tagging of a sentence on Pop music. The article had some, shall we say, difficult edits a little while back and I need to go back to the sources when I have time and check that they actually say what is indicated. I think the source (note 3 I assume) indicates that pop, in the modern sense dates from the 50s/60s, but for your AfD debates you might find Traditional pop music useful. You may, of course be aware of it already. In short, the term pop can be used for music before 1967. Hope this helps.--SabreBD (talk)00:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avatar characters
I created the articles Ozai (Avatar: The Last Airbender) and Momo (Avatar: The Last Airbender) but I have a feeling they won't stay because a certain editor says their terrible. He made them a merge but I reverted it. But I am pretty sure that won't be the end of it. I just ask you to help out in any way possible if you can to save these articles. Maybe put them in your watchlist. They're not perfect but they aren't terrible. Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep anything these days, you have to find some mention of the character in Google news archive search. [27] I searched for "Avatar" "the last airbender" and then the name of the character. If you look through that and find any details about the character, instead of just mentioning a name in a sentence or two, then you'll be able to save it. Otherwise, its a futile effort. Sorry. The Wikipedia has changed, the evil deletionists lunatics getting their way. You can find a wikia suited for it though. http://avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Avatar_Wiki More than two thousand articles there, dedicated to every character and aspect of the series. The wikia is constantly growing in popularity, over 30 million hits a month. Anything you are interested in, you can find a wikia for, or if not you can create a new one quite easily. DreamFocus16:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. And yeah I know about the Avatar Wikia. I just thought they deserved to be in Wikipedia too. What was I thinking?!?! Anyways I just put the consensus on whether or not it should be merged in the List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters in the discussion page of that article if you want to vote. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not previously know about Manga Wiki. Thank you for showing its existence and transfering the Nana to Kaouru article. I will definetly become a contributor to Manga Wiki now. Lord Metroid (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed your edits to Marika Hayashi, and I wanted to make sure you understand the new BLP PROD process. Basically, any article on a living person created after March 18, 2010 must have sources or it will be deleted. This has nothing to do with the notability of the subject. Even if the person is clearly notable and the article says why the person is notable, it can and likely will still be tagged with a BLP PROD if it doesn't have sources. Also, a BLP PROD doesn't necessarily mean that the person who added the tag actually wants the article to be deleted, but instead is just saying that policy requires it to be deleted if no sources are added within 10 days. If you already understood the process then I'm sorry for bothering you with this, but it looked from your edit summaries on Marika Hayashi that you thought the BLP prod was questioning her notability when it actually wasn't. Calathan (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was only if there is anything that might be considered negative in any possible way. That is why they argued for that. The small amount of information about her, can not possibly cause her harm or offend anyone at all. So the prod is rather ridiculous. Anyway, I went ahead and took a few seconds to check her official website, and it confirmed the information in that one paragraph about her, there now a reference for it. People should always do at least a brief search on someone's official website, before trying to delete their article like that. DreamFocus01:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the primary source, a friend to scholars everywhere. If you're going to do research you should look for what other sources are saying, not what she chooses to say about herself via her own website. pablo08:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should actually read the article before commenting on it. The only thing referenced to her site is the bit about her being part of the Yen member theater group, from Kanagawa Prefecture. If there is absolutely no possible reason to doubt the information from the primary source is real, then no reason not to link directly to it. DreamFocus08:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would they be better? Whichever is most likely to be accurate, is the best one to use, and if more than one source is accurate, then just link to the primary source. That's where the other sources most likely got it from anyway. Do you think they'd waste time calling up this group and ask for conformation, or just trust the official website of the person? DreamFocus11:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are just generally more useful in an encyclopaedia, for obvious reasons. In this case its somewhat irrelevant, there just really isn't a lot to say about this woman. pablo11:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, still learning. These deletion waves are coming fast and hard and confusing me. Is there a good central place to list delete proposed articles? Often times articles I would try to save are deleted simply because I don't know they are being deleted. I'm sure others feel the same way. What is the PROPER way to be informed? Mathewignash (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The best way I know of really is just to watchlist the Wikiproject page for listing deletions, and see what was added on each edit. --Gwern (contribs) 19:19 29 August 2010 (GMT)
Well it seems that J Milburn just deleted about 20+ Transformers articles that had notes saying they may lack notability. There wasn't even any talk on the matter. He just posted they may not be notable, then deleted them a while later. Can anything be done about this? Mathewignash (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most Wikiprojects have a place to list them, thus getting noticed. The Transformers wikiproject doesn't have a special page like that. There is a page that list all television shows up for deletion, and one for webcomics, anime and manga, etc. Did he delete ones that were nominated for deletion, or proded for at least a week, or did he just go off on his own without following proper procedures? Which articles were they? Link me to one. DreamFocus21:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What J Milburn did, as can be seen from his contributions, is redirect a number of Transformer related articles to List of Maximals. He has had the notability tag on them from around the 15th, though i'm not sure what proper procedure is in regards to redirecting articles without discussion. SilverserenC21:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He nominated some others for deletion, voted delete in some discussions, and then with a lot of them just replaced them with a redirect avoiding the AFD process entirely. He tags them two weeks ago with a notability tag which most everyone ignores, that no excuse to eliminate things. If you don't believe they should be redirects, just undo it, and if he disagrees still he can send it to AFD. I honestly don't believe we have a chance of saving these articles. This is just like how all the He-Man articles for characters and vehicles got destroyed, as well various video game characters, and dozens of other things. They usually just merge them into a list article, and then go and "trim" it later on, destroying all the information anyway. DreamFocus21:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to talk about me, notify me. If you have an issue with my edits, contact me. Scheming about mass reversions and talking about how evil I am behind my back is not cool. DreamFocus, if people ignore the notability tag, I don't think they can really be surprised when someone, y'know, assumes that the subject isn't notable. J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, AGF, good sir. I only popped in here in the first place to inform Dream Focus about what articles he needed to look at, just because I noticed the question on my watchlist. I'm not even involved in this whole Transformers issue. I'm content in sticking with my wolves. SilverserenC21:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did I call you evil? I was thinking more of misguided, but I didn't actually say that. And when I see a tag like that, I just assume its just someone who doesn't like that sort of article, just making their rounds, tagging hundreds of articles a day without ever reading any of them. That's usually what sorts go around doing mass tagging. DreamFocus22:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polite would be not mindlessly trying to destroy articles, which harm nothing by their existence, and bring people to Wikipedia to read things they are interested in. What do you actually think you are gaining by destroying someone else's work? DreamFocus22:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It previously redirected to air raid shelters, despite the fact that most Americans use the term bomb shelter for fallout shelters. Now its a disambiguate page. Whatever links there, can link to whichever type of shelter they are referring to. But yeah, I'll help with that. DreamFocus22:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going through them in order. The link at Seymour_Cray for bomb shelter, is about preparing for nuclear fallout, not planes flying over and dropping bombs which hasn't happened since World War 2, and isn't likely to ever happen again. So the old redirect was in error. Since fallout shelters are commonly called bomb shelters, and I honestly never heard anyone call them fallout shelters before, I'm leaving it. DreamFocus22:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ghostbusters refers to a bomb shelter, which could be either a blast shelter or a fallout shelter, or even both. The Navy practices shelling that area apparently. Oh well. All the links that previously went incorrectly to air raid shelter are fixed now, people able to look at the disambiguate page and figure out where to go from there. I don't really know what to change things to. I'll just leave it like this and let people figure it out on their own. DreamFocus22:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you haven't fixed any of the links at all? Well, that's your prerogative. But if you do choose to do any fixing navigation popups makes the job easier (but you have to set the flag popupFixDabs to true). Cheers, --JaGatalk20:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a good solution to have permanent disambig links hanging from article space. I have made bomb shelter into a proto article on the general article it covers, since it is not properly a disambig page. None of the linked titles including the phrase "bomb shelter", and there being nothing outside of a single class of sub-types to a general type, as opposed to, for example, a band or an album called 'Bomb Shelter'. Cheers! bd2412T17:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Experiment
Since you seem to be interested in the topic, I started a kind of experiment which may give articles mass-deleted on the same topic a fighting chance in the future. I recommend you change your !vote in every article listed there to Merge as decided by centralized discussion. —CodeHydro14:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is the same as deletion. 90% or more of the information would be lost. And I suggest you stop wasting time with such nonsense. People mass nominated articles for deletion at once all the time, it usually failing, so they then renominate them individually. And don't ask people to change votes on their talk page. That's rude. The articles should all be kept as they have been for years now, not eliminated by some haters who try to change the rules just to get their way and destroy what made Wikipedia great in the first page. DreamFocus14:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I admit it was poorly thought out. Didn't mean to canvass. I simply intended to point out that "decide by centralized discussion" (without merge) could be an option, but was sloppy in implementing it. I meant merge discussion... sigh.. It's a new idea, so give me a break. —CodeHydro14:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think I may withdraw my nomination for centralize soon, but you may be interesting in a new policy proposal I'm making called WP:AFDPP. Sorry once again for making a mess of things earlier. —CodeHydro19:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problems here. But it won't work. You see, most deletionists just hate certain types of things they don't believe should be on Wikipedia, and will use every excuse to eliminate them. Some honestly believe in following the suggested notability guidelines, but most just use them as an excuse to get what they want. Postponing something won't matter at all. If a quick Google news and Google books search doesn't find coverage, then most aren't willing to look farther, it too much of a bother. DreamFocus22:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It closed very quickly. Next time just tag it for rescue, don't go around telling everyone about it. That'll get enough attention. Honest mistake though, I'm sure. DreamFocus18:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't notice the merge tag up there for 11 months, but did notice me removing the tag just now? That seems a bit odd. Its had other edits since then, so if it was on your watch list you should've noticed before. Feel free to add a merge tag, and then click the link that appears to start an actual discussion for it if you want. DreamFocus14:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Dream Focus. You have new messages at Talk:Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Message added 12:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The deletion discussion is over, you live to fight another day. But thank you for your encouragement, you were the only user that has made a positive remark on my user page. My only reason for getting involved in the discussion in the first place. And it seems to have pissed off a certain user. I never thought that would be a good thing. So I am retiring from Wikipedia. But leaving the fairy ring on my talkpage. Goodbye and thank you again. --JHvW (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you ever decide to stop by and edit, the rescue squadron can always use more reasonable minded people to participate. [30] And if you have an interest in any video game series, television show, or anything at all, you can always find it on the wikia. Here is one I made for Taylor Swift. If you can think of something no one has made a wiki before for, you can start it yourself, and be in total control of content, preventing any problems. DreamFocus11:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ARS is doing good work, actually promoting the Wikipedia philosophy and are not, as some suggest, a club of inclusionists (a term I do not care for anyway). The recent AfD debate about Louis and the Nazis is a typical example. Somebody should really do something about that article. Although the documentary was probably made around 2003 it has very important things to say about nationalism and white supremacy in the United States. Because I live in Europe, maybe we are used to that sort of journalism (which in my opinion is balanced and fair) and just about everybody in the documentary is in Wikipedia. That by itself should make an article about the documentary notable enough. But if you or I were to argue that, we would get into trouble. So I have retired which does not mean I am not watching. If you ever feel that you or the ARS need help or advice (you will not always like it), feel free to contact me. Now I am going to try to "kick the habit" which will not be easy after seven years. Although I still feel that Wikipedia is a good project, I have exhausted my purpose. By the way, there is an excellent parody of Wikipedia on the College Humour Channel. Have you seen it? --JHvW (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Communicating with people off-wikipedia is against the rules, except for the mad deletionist empire at WikiReview, where disgruntled editors talk trash about people they don't like, and encourage everyone to go after them. For some reason they are immune to the rule, but no one else is allowed to do it, by email or forum. I found the College Humor thing [31]. Funny. Concerning that documentary, I watched the one where he was in Philadelphia showing abusive and idiotic police officers abusing people while drugs and murder were out of control. That was interesting. DreamFocus22:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, DreamFocus, I was wondering if you could please archive your talk page. It's getting a little difficult for me to open your talk page with my browser. Thank you. --Alpha Quadranttalk15:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. I fixed it. I now link to an actual review of it which I had found and read before, but hadn't linked to. Thanks for pointing that out to me. DreamFocus05:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saw your comment on Jimbo's talk page about wikia. Remember of course you can get emails there from new talk page comments so even if JW doesn't regularly visit it he'd probably know if someone posted a talk page comment if he set it up. Nil Einne (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion did actually end. An administrator changed the "result" to off. Also, I did in fact get notified that the discussion was over. Finally, we did actually solve this problem. We decided to keep the page. So in conclusion, the deletion IS over. Have a Nice Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnd900 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you have removed the PROD template I had placed on this article but have not added any reliable sources to support the text. The article had been tagged as an unsourced biography of a living person since 2008. I had checked the links on Japanese Wikipedia before adding the PROD template. Unfortunately nothing there seemed to conform to the WP:RS standards on English Wikipedia. The article has now been nominated for deletion and you are welcome to join the discussion. If you would like to improve the article and can provide at least one reliable source, that would help establish both the subject's notability and the verifiability of the text, which is what the article lacks and which are essential for the article to remain here.--Plad2 (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted on the talk page and in the AFD. There is very little text about the guy, two sentences total, and that is conformable on his official website, as well as what work he has been in. WP:BLP and WP:V are thus taken care of. DreamFocus07:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. I think you'll find the answers you are looking for at WP:ENT, WP:RS and WP:V. In the meantime, the AfD will take its course and the article will either end up improved and properly sourced or it will be deleted. It just can't stay as it is (as per WP:BLP).--Plad2 (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voice actors are the same as actors. They don't just hire someone who reads the lines, but who can put the necessary emotions into it. If an actor's role in a show like ER is notable, than the voice actor who dubs him in a major market is also notable. It counts as a significant role so passes WP:ENT just fine. DreamFocus14:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you brought the issue to my attention, I asked at over at Talk AFD. In response, Fram has now set the tool to not appear in the AFD template for any new AFDs, though it will still be visible on older ones. I am still trying to learn why the tool, if it is seen as inappropriate, was ever added in the first place, and how and when it got broken. Since this was initiated by your note to me, please feel free to look in. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.19:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mega Drive sales
You can't just go in and change that without getting editor consensus first.
See this discussion here [35] and maybe start a new one in that articles discussion page if you agree with what I was saying.--SexyKick00:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[36]That is just plain stupid. Instead of listing the sales figures there, where all the other sales figures for other consoles is at, there is a link to a place that says it sold 40 million copies in various formats. Why not just add that up for people and save time? Looks ridiculous how it is now. If its alright to have that information farther down in the article, no reason not to put it in the main article itself. I'll discuss it on the proper talk page. DreamFocus01:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think you can get consensus to shift towards adding the numbers, I say go for it. You have my support for adding the numbers. I don't think others will go along with you though.--SexyKick06:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two of us are for it, and only one person against it, so I did it. Honestly now. Their objection is based on them thinking it original research to add numbers together, when in fact, it is simply math and common sense. DreamFocus08:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually more editors against it if you read through the archive...I don't want to edit war away the progress of having the current info listed. But, maybe this will stand. I think we'd need about seven editors who agreed with us though. Remember wikipedia is about discussing changes, not voting on them.--SexyKick08:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Policies come before all else. If their only objection is because they misunderstood what original research means, then they should read the section for it. WP:CALC. DreamFocus08:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This individual does not appear to meet inclusion guidelines WP:BIO / WP:GNG - the news source mentioned is a blog, stating that the photographs were taken by the individual. Even if there were coverage of this story (which I cannot find), it would fail on the basis on being just one event.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You couldn't find references, even though the reference section links to interviews and video sections about the guy? And it isn't just one event, since he was previously covered before the stopping of that thief. Also, more coverage is given to him, not the event. DreamFocus08:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fighting the fight...
I just want to drop a quick note telling you how much I hate opposing (for lack of a better word) you at AfD. Hope my rebuttals aren't causing hard feelings, I've always admired your tenacity in saving articles. You should consider pitching in at Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue and find sources for these articles before they get to AfD. J04n(talk page)16:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message, and its sentiments. I don't own it, nor do I have any ownership feelings over it, so I will let it be deleted. I have smerged important material and citations, which is all that matters to me. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
recreated after finding an article showing it led to policy reviews etc can you keep an eye out in case it is targeted again
RR1953 (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hajime no Ippo
Its been months and I haven't had a response on the talk page. [38]
I said my peace, and nothing has changed my mind. No need to repeat my opposition. Neither of us seem able to convince the other. DreamFocus12:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just want to make sure you know that, although we are currently in a bit of a dispute, it's nothing personal against you. I'm just trying to get the article to a more fitting title that would make it less likely to be challenged, merged, deleted, or whatever in the future, and I'm having trouble understanding your rationale for why fire fits.--Yaksar(let's chat)11:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was challenged for deletion before, and ended in keep. I think I explained things as best I could on the proper discussion page, as has others. Particle is not a better solution to fire. Lets keep that discussion there. DreamFocus11:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the only other edit the person has ever done was vandalism, so I honestly doubt it was more than the same. And while you are here, I'd like to point you in the direction of this rule: WP:STALKING You seem to be following certain people around lately. DreamFocus23:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the "Get a life, kid" part at the end that Yaksar found objectionable. Vandalism can be fought effectively without resorting to personal insults. In fact, one school of thought suggests that it's getting emotional reactions like this from others that encourages vandals to do their work in the first place. Also, while those who have encountered your work before may have gotten used to your unique personal style, you should probably be aware that the relatively mild "get a life" can be seen as significantly more insulting by someone who's never encountered you before. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They want people to be upset, not tell them what dumbasses they are. After seeing what he did for his first edit, changing behaviour to behalves, [39] I didn't have any patience for him. Since it is an IP address, it could be a different person though. DreamFocus02:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yaksar, "unnecesssary harsh" is telling people their articles are crap and trying to delete them. Telling someone to get a life instead of vandalizing Wikipedia all day, is not. DreamFocus02:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't decided whether or not to restore it yet. If not, I don't know what's wrong with them, since it gets coverage. Should've gone to a proper AFD anyway. Some people just hate everything and don't mind destroying things others have worked on. DreamFocus22:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant to say is that I made a lot of changes on the page over the past couple of days. I would really appreciate if you could look at the page as it looks now and let me know your thoughts so that we maximize the chances for restoration. I am open to any suggestions in order to make it better. Also shall I still do an AFD? Thanks so much! Sarabas (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they didn't think the article was notable, they should've sent it to AFD, and discussed it with people. They instead did a speedy delete, which wasn't called for. Hopefully you won't have to go through an AFD at all, if people can be convinced its notable. Article looks fine to me. The more news sources you can find that mention it, the better. DreamFocus00:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about that topic. If its the same as another topic, then merge makes sense. What does it have that the other one does not? Discuss it on the deletion review though, to convince people to restore it. DreamFocus22:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest, I would suggest leaving the image removed; it doesn't really help our argument, and will only make it easier for those who want the page deleted to characterize everyone who wants it kept as "fanboys" and the like. Kirill[talk][prof]06:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article is fine, and will be kept. The news coverage proves its notable. The only people trying to delete it are just haters. The image is most appropriate. DreamFocus06:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination of season one episode articles of House for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternity (House) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Xeworlebi(talk)14:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You put up a red link, so I thought I'd be helpful and get it started. I searched Google news archive to find places that mentioned it. Not sure how helpful that was. DreamFocus19:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awasete Ippon is at AFD here, does not look like it can be kept here, and I noticed that the transwikied copy at the manga wikia does not have all of the history intact. Could you please re-transwiki the article over there so that all of the history is intact? Thank you. --Malkinann (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to say or where to place it. This user mass deletes information on a whim, insisting its all junk, regardless of the opinions of others. DreamFocus10:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There must've been a manga article that used that template, and it got included in a template import. Or maybe I imported everything in the Category:Intricate templates to try to get the infoboxes and some other things to work properly, and just got some extra ones not needed as well. I guess I could go through a list of the unused templates and delete them. If its a lot, then it'd take too long, since I'd have to do it one by one. They don't take up much space and aren't hurting anything, so no big deal. DreamFocus09:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support not to delete the page. I read something in the wikipedia page about wikipedia: Though the English Wikipedia reached 3 million articles in August 2009, the growth of the edition, in terms of the numbers of articles and of contributors, appeared to have flattened off around Spring 2007.In July 2007, about 2,200 articles were added daily to the encyclopedia; as of August 2009, that average is 1,300. A team led by Ed H Chi at the Palo Alto Research Center speculated that this is due to the increasing exclusiveness of the project.New or occasional editors have significantly higher rates of their edits reverted (removed) than an elite group of regular editors, colloquially known as the "cabal". This could make it more difficult for the project to recruit and retain new contributors, over the long term resulting in stagnation in article creation. Others simply point out that the low-hanging fruit, the obvious articles like China, already exist, and believe that the growth is flattening naturally.Voui (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Kite19:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus19:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(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 Kite19:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus19:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus20:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus10:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Article Rescue Squadron Dream Focus/Interaction with others, a dynamic list of articles needing to be rescued, which changes with new updates, can be found here:
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus03:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus16:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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? DreamFocus02:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Kite09:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about this [42]? 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? DreamFocus14:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Kite17:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus18:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Kite00:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus00:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Kite01:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus04:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus14:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus18:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus19:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus23:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus14:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can see what code any template produces by substing it: instead of {{fancruft}} I typed {{subst:fancruft}} so that when the page is read, the contents of the template are loaded into the page - it's the same principle as typing four tildes and getting your signature. pablohablo.14:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
...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
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. DreamFocus15:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus16:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus16:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus15:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus02:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus08:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus13:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus02:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That editor almost always tries to delete everything, regardless of consensus, and when he can't get away with that he says no consensus. DreamFocus02:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus03:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. [44] I'm not sure if the guy is still working on it, or not. DreamFocus03:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. DreamFocus23:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus22:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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:WoohookittyDisamming fool!09:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus16:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hey, Dream Focus. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy WikiBirthday! Have a great day!SurajT
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)[reply]
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. SilverserenC04:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [45] 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. DreamFocus12:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus18:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus19:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus21:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus22:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I started a discussion about the AfD deletion nomination process
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". DreamFocus17:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dream Focus. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
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[reply]
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. DreamFocus00:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 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?
Hi Dream Focus,
In case you have not seen it, I bring your attention to [46] citing a "textileglobal" site [47]. Do you think that is all the "proof I need" to put back the references that were removed [48]? Thank you. Domenico.y (talk)Domenico.y
... 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 Westwood05:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Google advanced search allows you to see how many websites link to a certain page. [49] September 14th was when you added the notice about the outline page being considered for deletion. [50] 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 [51] and only 2,940 times the month before. More news coverage, more traffic to Wikipedia. DreamFocus00:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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[52] but can not find anything added on that day. --Stefantalk06:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus10:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus10:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus22:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"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. [53] That's how we talk around here. DreamFocus22:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus20:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.DreamFocus10:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. [54]DreamFocus10:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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
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. DreamFocus15:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus15:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus01:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [55] and [56] but Racconish deems that non-suitable for references. Anyway, from the deletion discussion, all the editors want to delete it. Thank you for trying.
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. DreamFocus23:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. [57][58]DreamFocus18:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus01:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.CayeuxDreamFocus02:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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.
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? DreamFocus19:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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. DreamFocus09:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus21:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review (6th nomination)
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. DreamFocus22:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. DreamFocus11:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Dream Focus, I just wanted to let you know that an AfD, in which you participated in recently has been reopened. Please express your opinion again in the current AfD. Thank you. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon, I am trying to have these added to DYK and improve and expand them. I was wondering if I could get some feedback or peer review from you?LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That page has never been semi-protected, and I moved it to perform a history merge; the page move was most definitely not a mistake. In any case, a page's protection settings are unchanged when it is moved; it is only deleting a page that causes the protection settings to be reset. Graham8705:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want this to be a revert war, so let me sort it out here. The link I posted ([61]) contains this line: "Ultima Underworld went on to sell nearly half a million copies, win all sorts of awards, and become one of the top Origin titles." The other source says, "Nevertheless, word of mouth carried Underworld sales for many years, and they managed to rack up half a million sales between the two titles, making them hits over the long haul." The first source refers exclusively to the first game, and it says that it sold nearly 500k. The second source refers to both, and says that they reached a total of 500k. I'm going to revert back now, but I'll re-add the stuff about word of mouth taking a few years to spread. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd like to clarify that the first link can't be out of date. It's from 2000. The game had been out for 8 years by then, and there's no chance that they were still tracking its sales. Any sales data from 2000 would be the same in 2002 (when the CVG article was written). JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Asselineau 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.--Lawren00 (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see extensive discussions on this Talk page - there is an ongoing discussion regarding the bio sections, specifically about the school suspension as well as the rest of the details in those sections. Feel free to join in the conversation - we are moving toward severely reducing the details in those sections and are trying to reach consensus coming off of full protection. Thanks. Tvoz/talk20:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read the top part of the page and joined the discussion there. It seems to have been spread out over the page in many areas. I hadn't realized someone had already added and removed it. DreamFocus20:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - there is so much happening on that page, and it changes so frequently, that it is almost impossible to keep up. If you look down below you can see the problems people have raised regarding including the marijuana residue: essentially, it has absolutely no relevance to the shooting and seems to be POV to include it. Tvoz/talk23:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Evangelion: Re-Take
I finished reading Re-Take late last month, and I added a link to the all-ages version on the NGE page. Like you said to me, Re-Take IS a great series. It would be great if one day it got an official release.
zictor23 (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made an article for it in 2008 but it got deleted. I later ported the entire history of the article to my manga wiki at http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Neon_Genesis_Evangelion_RE-TAKE You can add in articles for anything related to manga or anime in any possible way, over there if you want, and make them as long as you like. I saved a lot of articles that were being deleted in mass years ago, by porting them over there. DreamFocus18:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About Deletion Yoko Higashi
>>http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page allows anything related to manga or anime at all on it. You can create your page there if you want, and anything else you can think of. Do enough work and I'll make you an administrator.
~~It is a long time.
If it edits by Wikia and a page is made,can the page of "Yoko Higashi" be made from Wikipedia once again?
Or is it a talk of only edit of a Wikia page?
Anyhow, I edit wikia first as you were directed.~~
Was the method of the question addressed to you good now?
Since I have not made the page of a question from a Japanese version to an administrator.
Done. Was the reference page of the English-language edition made here? Since her data have only a Japanese version, the reference website carried out perfectly is only Japanese. Is it impossible although I rewant to edit the page deleted by Wikipedia? The contents of the link place which you showed were only what is not understood at all.
And, Who is Taylor Swift? ; — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParanoiaMethod (talk • contribs) 18:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Export to export the page and its entire edit history when it at Articles for Deletion. But I was unable to import that to the Manga Wiki like I normally do. So I just edited the xml file and copied over the most recent information there, a simple copy and paste. DreamFocus18:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
>>But I was unable to import that to the Manga Wiki like I normally do.
Is pasting on the deleted Wikipedia page directly useless?
Is it necessary to add the item, text, etc. of activity record of her to a slight degree?
Well, it is ready for repeated deletion...
I want to do with the intention of a test. (-_-;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParanoiaMethod (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is fine. If more than one person wrote the content, then you are suppose to list them in the history [63] of the article. But you did all the work on Wikipedia and on the Wikia so its alright. DreamFocus21:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional spacecraft size, you asked why ships would be able to fly around space but not land on planets. I figured I'd mention a few reasons to build them like that. This is not intended as criticism and in fact you probably know this stuff already, I'm just in high spirits and being a bit silly.
Ships that can't land may be far more efficient. Atmospheric flight is a wholly different beast than spaceflight, even for spaceships that are just passing through. If ships are divided into dedicated orbital shuttles and interplanetary ships, or spaceships are large enough to field landing craft, both types can be optimized for their roles. Things get even clearer if the setting has a Beanstalk or some other unlikely solution, things get even clearer. Ditto for spaceships that are too specialized to even work on a planet, such as ones with solar sails. (Read up on those if you haven't already - they're brilliant. They take years to get anywhere, of course, but that may not be such a problem with probes.
Ships that can't land can be ridiculously less expensive. If fictional spaceships are anything like real ones, fuel economy is a centerpiece of their design. The more fuel they need, the more mass they have, and the less they can change their velocity per unit of fuel consumed, so the more fuel they need, and so forth until the budget gives way like a rotten tree trunk. And as it turns out, mucking about on planetary surfaces ruins the mileage. If I'm reading the charts right, it takes more force to get from Earth to low Earth orbit than it takes to get from low Earth orbit to the Moon, and over twice as much as it takes to get from low Earth orbit to lunar orbit.
Ships that travel faster than light fare a little better, but many such engines don't work close to planets, providing room for exciting space battles that don't just involve driving a ship into a planet at millions of miles per second. Many such ships are also too massive, and their uses too demanding, to justify the additional demands of landing, such as aerodynamics, supporting their own weight, and not sinking into the ground.
The ships have artificial gravity technology. If you can control gravity, then landing shouldn't be a problem. Unless you can affect gravity on a ship everywhere enough to create it, but not cancel it out I suppose. The list is deleted now, but it included many things from Star Trek, which logically speaking should be able to land on a planet. Heat shielding isn't a problem, materials are strong enough to survive, and they have thrusters and impulse power. Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica land their ships easily on planets, as do other series. Any spaceship able to move easily between solar systems, should be able to master the simple art of landing on a planet without problems. DreamFocus23:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Careful - that's now 3 reverts for you in a few hours at Magneto as well. Even if your edits are following policy, don't make another one. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know, but it's still a revert and would be counted as one if you made another - 3RR clearly states that the reverts don't have to be the same revert every time. It's definitely not best to run the risk. Black Kite (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted my addition of a {{more plot}} tag to that page. I don't dispute your rationale, but if that's really all the plot there is available, that's a little sad. I wish I knew enough to expand it. In any case though, don't you think that Plot should still be in its own section, not just in the lede? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)20:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comic books don't list plot, they just tell you what the story is about, which the lead does just fine. The second issue came out this month. You don't have a lot of stuff going on yet, or characters to keep track of, so there isn't really any chance of writing more. Unlike books and films, you don't need a plot section. DreamFocus22:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UTI
Have removed your content on cranberry juice as it was already mentioned with references to the actual meta analysis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought giving more detailed information was better, and couldn't figure out how to stick that in any of the existing sections. DreamFocus 00:44, 18 July
pink slime
thanks for your support of the npov here, i feel that there is a panic against anything negative about this wretched product and that since the facts themselves (which may lead people that oppose gross stuff in food) may lead to a negative view of the product and it is therefore whitewashed.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add eyes to my iPod input?
Hi Dream Focus,
In reference to this [65] I am slowing getting into an edit war :( with Moderato6th.
I have placed a number of references into the text line to expand the ambiguous intro "portable media players created". Unfortunately people who read this page get an impression that the iPod was unique and some expansion to set the originating tone is required.
My problem is this page by the looks of the lock is heavily gamed (fanboys) and I seem to have hook in such a person.
Could you look at my input and add eyes or point me to the right people to do this.
Thanks Dream Focus. I let it go for a few days to see what my reaction was. I think its the word "created", now looking at the start again I can see that I am the problem, I am trying to fit my bias into the page... my over reaction, sorry to bring you in and wasting your time... again much appreciated. Best Regards Vufors (talk)
Hey Dream, I stumbled across this AfD too. I added a one 1850s case to the article [66], as this could really use expansion both timewise and geographically. Defensive gun use should not be limited to what seems "moral" today, but is also valid when used to enforce crimes of its day, like a wife attacking her husband for being lawfully beat, or slaves trying to harm their masters/agents, or Jews trying to harm Nazi sympathizers using force. Defensive gun use is a powerful method of enforcing the law of any time, ever since guns were invented, we can probably add a few thousand events if we work on it.--Milowent • hasspoken21:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no rule against it, nor any reason not to. I never listen to any haters out there. A few people not liking these sorts of things, is not a valid reason not to have them, as consensus in AFDs for these types of articles has clearly shown in the past. DreamFocus07:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. I mentioned it in the edit summary, and on the talk page of the parent article, but not on the new article's talk page. I'll add that now. DreamFocus10:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that. Looking through the article now. Glad someone agreed with me. You seem to have accidentally removed the New Layout topic when you readded what he had removed from the talk page. [67]DreamFocus02:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you got it back up, excellent. His layout was awful, justifications spurious, he deleted the talk page, and he has never even touched the article before, really odd. I put up a layout idea on the Talk PageBhalluka (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind if I reduce the header level of your proposal so that it becomes a subsection of the RFC above? Seems like the RFC should encompass the various proposals on the same topic. Monty84516:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Separate proposals go into separate sections. No need to stick them under one, nothing gained by that, just harder for someone to edit, far more text loading up in the edit box when they hit the edit thing at the top of the first one. DreamFocus16:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that typically an RFC tag covers the section its in, not separate sections later on the page. It seems more reasonable to have 3 proposals as sub sections of one RFC on the page, then to have 3 separate RFCs on the same page, and on the same topic. Monty84516:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a request for comment if you have people there already discussing things. If they see the first tag, then when they are there, they can see what else is being discussed. DreamFocus16:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to revert a PROD will you please place the link you found in the article? Doing this will help prevent the article from going to a possible AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did place a link in the article in the Reception section. And in the edit summary I placed a link to Google search results showing plenty of other things to look through and find, should anyone doubt the song is notable. Hopefully no one will try to delete it again without doing a proper search first. DreamFocus01:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dream Focus. Would you like me to make you a reviewer? I remember thinking that it was a shame you weren't a reviewer when I put the Duck Dynasty article under pending changes protection, but for some reason I never did anything about it then. Just say the word, and I'll flip the reviewer switch for you so that you can review IP edits to that article yourself. Let me know what you think. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)14:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
You doubled the size of that article with just all the references alone for one person. [68] You don't need that many references to prove the information. List of Renaissance men does seem to be redundant to the list of polymath article. What's the difference? DreamFocus01:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just updated the polymath list adding the Renaissance men and women that were missing. So the List of Renaissance men also seems redundant to me too. Combining the articles would put everything in one place. With similar meanings on polymath and renaissance man the title "People called polymath and or Renaissance men" would also make sense. For those screaming about people like Steve Jobs being on the same list as Da Vinci, adding another section underneath the polymath list for the few "universal geniuses" solves it. Thoughts on this? Bhalluka (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yworo (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.03:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not mention GOG here? Video game articles almost invariably mention if game is distributed through distribution services like Steam or Desura. GOG is a licensed distributor, not a retailer. It's a game publication channel just like others. Listing individual retailers that carry games would indeed be an unmanageable proposition, but not so in case of digital distribution channels.
Also, "a lot of sites sell the game, but no reason to link to them" is inaccurate. Ultima series is not available through other digital distribution channels, and until GOG started distributing them recently, they have been only available second hand in recent years. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I searched Amazon [69] and the official website [70] and find you are right. That is odd a big company like EA would sell its old property through someone else, when they could easily do it themselves. Maybe they own GOG. DreamFocus19:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to just be reading about good old Ultima and, as I am wont to do, I fiddled with it, specifically adding 'needs improvement' and two 'unreferenced section' templates. Then I noticed you had just been doing something in re: citations, so I just want to point out my changes were made unawares of yours, and shouldn't be considered any kind of reaction or whatever, just MHO on the current state of the text. ofc, as a long-term WP'd'n, I won't be the least offended if you choose to disagree w/ my edits entirely. Be bold, I ALWAYS say. Unless I'm feeling whiny... Anyways... Eaglizard (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reasons to add citations there. I know some of the information is somewhere in the Official Book of Ultima by Shay Addams version two that I own and read, and the rest is probably listed somewhere. Having played all of the Ultima games I do remember having to answer questions to prove I had the manual, and thus didn't just copy the disks from somewhere. But whatever. Maybe someone will feel like looking up information. I don't think any of that is really in doubt, or slanderous in any way, so I'm just going to ignore it. If you feel like it really needs the tags, leave them in, if I have convinced you otherwise, then remove them. Whatever, no big deal.DreamFocus21:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the strangely placed Ĥ om the header. I was in Explorer and I forgot that you have to wait until all the special characters have loaded before you start editing.Bjones (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just curious, it rather strange to see. I don't even know how to make that character, I never seeing it again. I use Firefox since Internet Explorer always had so many security problems, and Firefox just does everything better. DreamFocus03:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pornbio Strawpoll
I've seen you was the one who had requested it. A strawpoll started a couple a days ago, you can vote and share your opinions here. Regards, Cavarrone (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
Yeah, no problem. We all make mistakes at times. Just try to imagine the feelings of a first time Wikipedia contributor next time around. DreamFocus07:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. SilverserenC07:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus04:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [71] 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 [72] 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. DreamFocus04:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can find someone posting about an AFD that ended in merge,but the article was just replaced by a redirect instead. [73] 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[74]. 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 [75]. It then went to Wikiquette board [76] but was closed after some arguing there, with the message to send it to another board, which I recall we did. DreamFocus04:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus16:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus08:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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[reply]
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. [77]DreamFocus08:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If her books are notable, then the writer is notable, by rule of common sense. Her official website list reviews her books have received. [78] 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. DreamFocus08:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus08:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - TP03:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 - TP03:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus03:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they were against it before, they'll be against it now. And you don't need to post anything telling the closing administrator there are now references in the article. You just list what the references are that prove notability, in the AFD like we always do, and they can look at that. Then they look at the standard responses of people insulting the references found.
That's not enough coverage(things like computer software never get a full page review just a paragraph or two) since we measure things by number of words spent talking about something, not the content of those words themselves.
Complain that even if its listed on the reliable sources noticeboard as a reliable source, they believe its a right/left wing publication, and thus it should not count as a reliable source
State that a full page article about a writer/artist/sculptor/composer's latest work isn't mostly about them but their creation so doesn't count to their notability
Insist that pointing to the official website for a television show that list that they did review a product on a certain episode, doesn't count towards notability since if you can't find the entire episode online somewhere, then you don't know if it was a long review or brief mention
Insist that while coverage of the activities of a High School count as significant coverage for it, that the same sort of coverage for an Elementary School, A sheriff's department, a fire department, or others, does not count towards its notability.
Mistakenly state that either the General Notability Guidelines or the secondary guidelines don't matter, that you need to meet both of them to prove yourself notability, then argue nonstop about that misconception.
State that coverage showing a book was a bestseller doesn't count, nor is confirmed sales mentioned in reliable sources showing millions of copies of something were sold, because those are just "big numbers".
A tag has been placed on Oddcast (company), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bazj (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the guy who tags a sufficiently large number of articles for speedy deletion within a short period of time to take a moment to look at things more closely perhaps? Then check up on their record to see if they need to be taken to ANI? That might work. Lot of guys like that out there though, and its hard to sort through the many nominations to see which ones are valid and which ones are invalid. You need to show a regular pattern. DreamFocus15:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made a reply to your comment on that page, asking you a question. I wonder, could you perhaps answer that question? That would be greatly helpful, thanks.Newquestions?05:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! Just a note, I've expanded/revised my comment at the above AfD discussion. When I was doing so, there was an edit conflict, so you may not have seen my revised comment. Since you commented there, just letting you know about my comment revision. Northamerica1000(talk)19:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, good finds. I am still surprised there wasn't more, but I assume its because Google news search isn't all knowing and complete. DreamFocus20:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. All other web search engines should be eliminated, and then the whole world could route all of their searches only through Google <<sarcasm>>. It sure would be an improvement for the {{Find sources}} templates to be enhanced with additional search engine options. Fact is, Wikipedia may be overly-reliant upon Google, in which Wikipedia becomes based upon Google search results. Northamerica1000(talk)01:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What other search engines handle news search? I just tried Bing, and it doesn't go back more than seven days. Web search engine list a lot of them to try though. Yahoo news search for this has zero results. [80]DreamFocus01:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I just do standard searches on main search engine pages, rather than in their news sections. When doing so, sometimes just typing the word "news" and a comma, and then the subject creates results not found in other searches (e.g. "news, Raleigh Downtown Live") (without the quotation marks). Northamerica1000(talk)11:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well mention other search methods I've used, of which you may or not be aware of.
Using quotation marks in searches (e.g. "Raleigh Downtown Live") can narrow search results, in which only results which have the entire term are generated.
Sometimes to omit results, adding a minus (-) sign and url addresses for unwanted sites can result in higher-relevance hits (or at least higher relevance hits per Wikipedia's notability standards, to omit sites that aren't valid for demonstrating topic notability) – e.g. "Raleigh Downtown Live" -Public-relations-hype-that-doesn't-prove-notability.com.
To narrow searches to specific sites, here's something that works in Google searches, an example from when I was working on the Taipei Community Services Center article: Taipei "Community Services Center" site:www.taipeitimes.com This returns results only from (in this example) www.taipeitimes.com.
Then there's the find sources templates, which I have had success with, particularly Find Sources3, which has the most options.
{{Find sources 3}} GBooks · MSBooks · GScholar · MSAcademic · GNews recent · GNews old · NYT recent · NYT old · Wikipedia Reference Search
Maybe some of this information could be added to the search tips page you created for ARS. Even better, perhaps information from that treatise could be included in/merged to the ARS guide to saving articles page. I don't have the link for that page you created, could you list it here? Here's an opportunity to improve the ARS page! Northamerica1000(talk)15:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I created a page somewhere. Anyway, add to it as you see fit. Having all helpful information about finding sources, etc, on one page makes it easier to find and sort through. No sense cluttering up an already long main page. You can edit it as you see fit. You do a lot more work than I do on Wikipedia these days. DreamFocus16:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! Just remembered. Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications is where you sign up for getting a HighBeam account, and that will allow far greater power in finding news sources. Someone mentioned it on the ARS talk page somewhere. Perhaps regular members who haven't signed up already for it should be reminded. DreamFocus18:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you are an experienced editor, and in particular has been very constructively helping damaged articles, your opinion would be appreciated in this, as yet, non-consensual and criticaltalk. Thanks, Excalibursword (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly thanks very much for your comprehension and determination. A user had previously restored the page over there, thus seemed more complicated renaming it (and in the original talk the complainers messed all the assessments), than just keeping it and inserting a link to the original talk (which was done in the first section). This seemed enough to me, but really sorry if this made it some unclear. Now, in any case (not earlier and not now), it is evident that there isn’t a consensus to blank anything, but unfortunately some user just reverted the redirects along with unbelievable summaries. Likely you will think very useful the links: here and here. All best, Excalibursword (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually DreamFocus is not being accused of that. How about you and that other editor both just tone it down a little bit? -- Avanu (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that Finn and Flame Princess are dating, but to solidify the evidence for it, can we get a url reference to a reliable source? Ratemonth (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the transcript on the wikia site might violate copyright laws, so you can't link to it in the article. I'm not sure. I did link to it on the talk page. DreamFocus14:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source information request
Thanks for helping out with the Pizza cheese article. I've been working on it, and I was wondering if you have access to this paywalled source:
If you do, I'd like to add a quote to the source in the article to back-up this statement in the Pizza cheese article: "Each year in the United States, 700 million frozen pizzas are sold, 3/4th of which contain contain cheese substitutes." (The information isn't in the abstract for the paywalled article).
If you could provide a direct quote from this source, I would use it as a quote addendum to the reference in the article. It sure would help out, and I would truly appreciate it. If you have access to it, and the time, feel free to post it on my talk page, or add it to the source in the article.
Click here [82] and you can see what I saw in the summary. I tried Highbeam, but it won't show me that article. And questia and credo are as worthless as ever. DreamFocus16:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought since you have been editing this page, you might like to know that I would like some input on whether it meets either of two CSD requirements.
You can see them here: link
I was wondering if you are an administrator? If you are do you know how I can get the deletion case closed on an article I created: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amirite
Unfortunately for political reasons, they'd never let me become an administrator. The deletion discussion will close after 7 days have passed, and will most certainly end in KEEP. It was a bad nomination by an editor who unfortunately does that quite a lot at times. DreamFocus00:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - ok thanks:)
I saw the comment you said about the tech entrepreneur's week -i definitely saw that it came as a top 3 winner when looking for resources but I can't seem to find the link anymore - I found this email so you can ask them for proof: izzyfox@gmail.com but I'm 100% sure they came as a top 3 winner— Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs)
Proposed revision of disambiguation terms at WP:NCCOMICS
I could only find one reliable sources covering the song, and if you don't have at least two it gets deleted. So I gave up working on it. DreamFocus03:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it can be tricky finding the right citations! I've founda fewsources that talk about the song. Here's a few more [83][84]. It will probably be a while until I'm able to really dedicate lots of time to editing some of her singles. If it reaches the point where I have time to edit "Anything We Want", would you mind if I edited in your userspace (assuming you haven't expanded/moved it before then)? Ruby2010/201304:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind. I'll be glad if the draft becomes a proper article one day. Once it gets to a decent enough level, just click the Move tab and put it in mainspace. DreamFocus04:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.
Survey filled out. Not sure what good it will do. Until they have set unchanging rules to clear things up, everything will continue in its current state of unnecessary stress and confusion. DreamFocus18:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made a reply to your comment on that page, asking you a question. I wonder, could you perhaps answer that question? That would be greatly helpful, thanks.Newquestions?05:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is some confusion at the relevant talk page as to what you meant by this edit. I interpret your edit summary ("no need to repeat word for word what is at the top of the page") as meaning that you were eliminating an unnecessary redundancy, but another editor is interpreting it to mean that the redundant text (about significant coverage) was removed because it does not apply to nonprofit organizations. Your input at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Question about WP:NONPROFIT would be appreciated. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I explained it well. "no need to repeat word for word what is at the top of the page" was in my edit summary. The very first two sentences on the article are being copied over to another section for no real reason at all. I went ahead and explain on the talk page also. Secondary guidelines exist to show some things are notable even if they don't meet the primary guideline at WP:GNG. DreamFocus03:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus16:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus18:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! Just a note, I've expanded/revised my comment at the above AfD discussion. When I was doing so, there was an edit conflict, so you may not have seen my revised comment. Since you commented there, just letting you know about my comment revision. Northamerica1000(talk)19:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, good finds. I am still surprised there wasn't more, but I assume its because Google news search isn't all knowing and complete. DreamFocus20:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. All other web search engines should be eliminated, and then the whole world could route all of their searches only through Google <<sarcasm>>. It sure would be an improvement for the {{Find sources}} templates to be enhanced with additional search engine options. Fact is, Wikipedia may be overly-reliant upon Google, in which Wikipedia becomes based upon Google search results. Northamerica1000(talk)01:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What other search engines handle news search? I just tried Bing, and it doesn't go back more than seven days. Web search engine list a lot of them to try though. Yahoo news search for this has zero results. [85]DreamFocus01:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I just do standard searches on main search engine pages, rather than in their news sections. When doing so, sometimes just typing the word "news" and a comma, and then the subject creates results not found in other searches (e.g. "news, Raleigh Downtown Live") (without the quotation marks). Northamerica1000(talk)11:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well mention other search methods I've used, of which you may or not be aware of.
Using quotation marks in searches (e.g. "Raleigh Downtown Live") can narrow search results, in which only results which have the entire term are generated.
Sometimes to omit results, adding a minus (-) sign and url addresses for unwanted sites can result in higher-relevance hits (or at least higher relevance hits per Wikipedia's notability standards, to omit sites that aren't valid for demonstrating topic notability) – e.g. "Raleigh Downtown Live" -Public-relations-hype-that-doesn't-prove-notability.com.
To narrow searches to specific sites, here's something that works in Google searches, an example from when I was working on the Taipei Community Services Center article: Taipei "Community Services Center" site:www.taipeitimes.com This returns results only from (in this example) www.taipeitimes.com.
Then there's the find sources templates, which I have had success with, particularly Find Sources3, which has the most options.
{{Find sources 3}} GBooks · MSBooks · GScholar · MSAcademic · GNews recent · GNews old · NYT recent · NYT old · Wikipedia Reference Search
Maybe some of this information could be added to the search tips page you created for ARS. Even better, perhaps information from that treatise could be included in/merged to the ARS guide to saving articles page. I don't have the link for that page you created, could you list it here? Here's an opportunity to improve the ARS page! Northamerica1000(talk)15:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I created a page somewhere. Anyway, add to it as you see fit. Having all helpful information about finding sources, etc, on one page makes it easier to find and sort through. No sense cluttering up an already long main page. You can edit it as you see fit. You do a lot more work than I do on Wikipedia these days. DreamFocus16:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! Just remembered. Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications is where you sign up for getting a HighBeam account, and that will allow far greater power in finding news sources. Someone mentioned it on the ARS talk page somewhere. Perhaps regular members who haven't signed up already for it should be reminded. DreamFocus18:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Routine
Please explain to me what WP:Routine means, and whether it means that "routine" coverage of local companies by major daily newspapers is not coverage qualifying as independent reliable sources. In other words, is coverage by the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal the standard, and daily newspapers or particular city business journals are not independent reliable sources? You will easily guess what I am annoyed by in asking you about the standard. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Routine coverage is only things like restaurant reviews in places where they review every single one. Of course if they gave it praise that stood out from all others, that'd be more than just routine. Saying a new business opened in town and talking about them isn't really routine, since they don't do that all the time. A small town might mention a new local ice cream shop next to the drug store in their local paper, and that'd just be routine. DreamFocus14:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, are the sources I provide at Talk:Innovation Works#Sources to be considered reliable independent sources, or merely routine coverage and not reliable or independent? To dismiss the daily newspaper articles as routine coverage, and the business journal articles as based on press releases, means that most local or regional businesses have no coverage on which to base an article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just commented in that AFD. Bizjournal is just press releases, so don't bother listing them, they not a reliable source for notability establishing anyway. They can still be used to get information to put in the article itself though, provided you mention the company announced so and so, or the information is not in doubt anyway at all. Anyway, that is not routine coverage. DreamFocus13:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dream Focus, first, I wanted to say thanks for splitting off the "In Popular Culture" section into its own main article. There seems to be a real desire to have all of the Santa Ana winds pop culture content contained on the Wikipedia, and there certainly is plenty of it, but I think most editors agreed it was cluttering up the main article. I've personally watched it be cleaned out and rebuilt twice. But no one apparently had thought of splitting it off into its own main article before. Nice solution.
Also I wanted to talk about my edit that you reverted on the health effects and positive ions. I wasn't trying to reopen the debate in talk:Santa Ana winds#Health Effects: Ionic charge in Santa Ana winds? and I don't have any issue with the inclusion of the positive ions content. I was only concerned that the second line "Many believe this to be the cause for the statistical increase in the number of suicides and homicides during these times" implies that there is a solid, established statistical relationship between the winds/positive ions and an increase in homicides and suicides. Unless I'm reading the sources wrong, I think it's only theorized, and it hasn't been definitively established that there is an increase in homicides and suicides. I see how my change didn't sound right, but maybe there's another way we can word that sentence? Unless I'm wrong and it actually is definitively established. Darkest tree (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[86] You invalidated the referenced statement with "weak statistical relationship with an". Do any of the sources call it "weak"? Are there any reliable sources out there showing the time the winds occurred and a line graph showing that things went up or not during those periods? The ions certainly affect everyone's mood, no denying that. DreamFocus01:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The University of Cambridge released a statement Wednesday indicating that Hawking had told the Israelis last week that he would not be attending "based on advice from Palestinian academics that he should respect the boycott.
University officials said they had "previously understood" that Hawking's decision was based solely on health concerns -- he is 71 and has severe disabilities -- but had now been told otherwise by Hawking's office.
Not sure its settled. "Professor Hawking will not be attending the conference in Israel in June for health reasons. His doctors have advised against him flying," a university spokesman said in an email.Earlier, the same spokesman reported that Hawking had approved a statement posted by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine, which said he had decided to boycott the event "based upon his knowledge of Palestine".Asked about the change, the spokesman said: "I was mistaken. It was not approved by Professor Hawking" Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right that the article List of Once Upon a Time Characters is worth having. However as it is it seems like it is just a bloated point by point covering of the plot. I have cut it down a little, but it still really suffers that problem. I guess it might be redeemable, but I really do not see anyone putting forth any effort to fix the problem. Some of the descriptions run over 10 paragraphs. Even the "secoandary characters" descriptions often run very long. Since it was kept I would hope you would help to improve it so it is a readable, useful article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its readable to those fans interested in the series. I doubt anyone else will actually ever go to read it. I have no intention of ever watching the series, so I wouldn't know anything about it, or be able to determine what was important to have there. DreamFocus01:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for chiming in on the articles: Jordan Dale Lucas and Brian Whitlock. If these articles are deleted, I suggest a new article called either:
Animal cruelty incidents in Canada
OR
Canadians convicted of animal cruelty
I would appreciate your input on a new name for the article and a suggestion on how to write-up the new article. Presumably, I can just copy and paste the original articles into an article with a new name.
Thank you IQ125 (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both "The Vessel" and "In the Blood" involved people being sent into space on missions for a space agency called USAS. GusF (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping to save this crucial article from destruction. There were about a thousand ways it could have been expanded, but your suggestion in the AfD about changing attitudes through history seemned the best. So, I expanded the article along those lines. I thought I'd send you a mssg as the last scholar I cited was good Jane McGonigal. I see her as very much a kindred spirit to yourself. Like you she's a specialist in games, also has a broad interest in all sorts of scholarship, and is always trying to make the world a better, happier place for regular people to live in. She's also rather gorgeous. You probably know her already, but just in case, I reccomend you read her book Reality is Broken. (Only partly about workmanship, but all about how the real world can be made better through a good knowledge of games. ) FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have really expanded that article [89] and did so after it closed as Keep. I do try to find reliable sources to quote from whenever possible to save articles in need, and to find sources for anything with a citation needed tag, but writing out entirely new articles is always much harder. Normally I just do it for articles that catch my interest. Recently I created BacillaFilla because that is just an amazing thing to have. Its like magic, it taking cracks and concrete and making them vanish. DreamFocus01:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for creating the BacillaFilla article Dream. I'd not heard of that product, most interesting. It reminds me of an AfD I saw from North's page a few weeks back. It was for a type of self healing concrete that repairs its own cracks, by molecular process so it doesnt even need bacteria. Deletionists seemed to think the ability might be a hoax, but it fact even the ancient Romans knew how to make a type of self healing mortar. I put a source for that into our Self healing material article. If we can't get a wiki version of BacillaFilla, making the wikipedia self healing would be just as good. It would only take a few hours for devs to make it so that any deleted article that's not an attack page or hoax would automatically recreate after 3 months. Sadly, if someone tried to propose this on VP, hordes of deletionists would crawl out of the woodwork to oppose. At least we can dream. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AfD that you and I have been going back and forth on
Hi there! First off, I'm choosing to contact you on your talk page because I do not believe this question/call for assistance belongs on an AfD discussion (actually, I'm 100% sure it doesn't). I'm not here to argue the issue further (for I do not wish for that to happen). Anyway. My history here has been minute at best and my experience is very low. I've been trying to get involved with AfD more, and the more and more I read it, the more and more I've started to wonder about the process. That, however, is for another day again, altogether. One issue I face is that I do agree with you, articles which have a chance of being improved, such as this one, should not meet the chopping block, I'm just unsure how to handle, I guess. I'm curious to know your opinion as someone with a bit more experience as I:
Is it appropriate to 'withdraw' my opinion on deleting this article, considering how sloppily I've put together my opinions? (I suppose my cause for this is inexperience in some of WP's lesser known or referenced policies)
Is it then one's responsibility...or at least "calling", I suppose, to try and help improve this article, specifically after withdrawing a delete opinion? I do find things wrong with it but am unsure of how to start besides just generic cleanups and inline citations.
People change their minds in AFDs all the time. You put a line through your previous comments if you want, or just the delete part, and then say "keep". And anyone is welcomed and encouraged to improve the article. DreamFocus00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TA edits
Hi Dream focus, I have some questions about your last edits in the TA article: First, I was thinking it is prefered to have secondary and not primary sources (what was "inaccurate"???). And second, why do you removed the naming of reference??? Shaddim (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason not to use the primary source for information not in any reasonable doubt. You can see the archived of their website showing their downloadable units. If it was someone claiming how successful they were then you'd need a secondary source to make sure they weren't lying/exaggerating. I removed a reference and the naming of that reference since that site is not a reliable source. See WP:RELIABLE. And they didn't release exactly one new unit every single month, they just tossed them out whenever they had them done, so I changed the wording of that. DreamFocus22:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to drop you a quick note about your edit in Microsoft Mahjong: The version published by Microsoft Studios and developed by Arkadium is for Windows 8/Windows 2012 only. The other one in the next infobox is for Windows 7. Hope this clarifies things.
By the way, I know another Dream Focus in another Wiki far far away. His signature is just like yours. But you didn't hear this from me.
During the recent AfD for Bisexuality in the Arab world (closed as 'keep') you will either have seen opinions expressed to expand the scope of the article, or voiced that opinion yourself. I am placing this notice on the talk pages of all who expressed an opinion of whatever type in that deletion discussion to invite you to participate in a discussion on article scope and title at Talk:Bisexuality in the Arab world. You are cordially invited to participate. By posting this message I am not seeking to influence your opinion one way or another. FiddleFaddle10:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pink-headed duck
Sorry, didn't see the "read the article" part of your edit summary. The problem is that the article specifies its official status (right there in the infobox) as CR. Does that need to be updated? --Rhododendrites (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I guess I'm still confused as to what the best way to phrase the inclusion criteria for a list of extinct animals would be if not the IUCN -- because it seems like that's pretty commonly (in infoboxes and elsewhere) the standard. Seems like a bad idea to use just any and varied sources to determine the binary of in-list or not-in-list. --Rhododendrites (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they base their rating on reports from a small number of local fishermen, that's fine. If that's a source people trust. Read their official page. two credible reports from local fishermen and during the 2006 ... gathered the most convincing reports to date from a local fisherman that the species still occurs in the area (Tordoff et al. 2008). Further searches took place in January 2008 in northern Kachin State, focusing on the three sites from which there had been recent reports or claims, but the team failed to find convincing evidence of the species's continued existence there (Eames 2008). Forget what the experts say, as long as a random fisherman here or there says they might've seen something, that's good enough. DreamFocus15:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that sounds silly. Nonetheless, Wikipedia:Conservation status does say that we go by IUCN for species extinct since 1500 (before that is less clear). In the section on Special Wikipedia categories, it does list "Critical (Possibly Extinct) CR (PE), a semi-official category introduced by BirdLife International and likely to be adopted by other authorities including the IUCN in the near future. The weight of evidence points against the continuing existence of the taxon, but final surveys are still pending. Examples: Eskimo Curlew, Turquoise-throated Puffleg." So it sounds like, if anything, the duck would be in that category for Wikipedia purposes (and then used by the IUCN possibly later?). It's all a little pedantic, I know. I just hate to see arbitrary lists posing as encyclopedia articles (arbitrary as in, relying on OR, with no sources and no clear inclusion criteria). --Rhododendrites (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New section on the Anime and Manga RfC
Hello there. Since the Anime and Manga RfC seems to have developed a consensus for the "It depends on notability and uniqueness of each adaptation", I have started a thread to see if we can offer metrics or further guidance for such case by case... erm... cases. I have no idea if such a thing is even possible to draft up, but since having it might help, I figured I'd try. The thread is HERE, and as a previous participant in the RfC I wanted to let you know about it using this overly long, rambling message. Cheers, Sven ManguardWha?15:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion Discussion - Susan RoAne
Hi,
I understand that you had a reason for deleting the content in the AfD, but please be aware that it is almost never acceptable to remove content from a deletion discussion, even if it's your own. The guidelines for talk pages are a good fit for deletion discussions, and can be found here. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notice the administrator in question has removed the same post when it was reinserted by that editor. [91] "doesn't seem to be of direct relevance here". Same reason I gave for removing it. DreamFocus20:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Tin box".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk17:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have unprotected your talk page per WP:PP. Indefinite protections of talk pages are rarely used now and when talk pages are protected, should be accompanied by an unprotected subpage. If you continue to experience persistent vandalism, you may request a short term protection of your page at WP:RFPP. Mkdwtalk14:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
![[25]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_June_13&oldid=367739158#File:The_Time_of_Angels_illustrative_image.jpg){kind=link}
