Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:02, 21 June 2009

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

This user rescues articles for the Article Rescue Squadron.

Dream Focus Talk Page

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

user:Dream_Focus Dream_Focus

between double brackets, user colon and name

Article names

I notice you were wondering how to change an article's name, or if you should "just create a new article and copy-paste all the content over".

You should never just copy-paste the material over; that screws up the edit history. Rather, you should use "move this page", which means "move this page to a new name".

Okay? DS 22:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

They already had a GI Joe page, they just forgot to link to it anywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=G.I._Joe_character_list&redirect=no My G.I.Joe Character list was redirected by someone to List of characters in G.I. Joe. Now, that page is gone, redirecting it to another page someone had created earlier, but hadn't linked to from any of the main GiJoe pages for some reason. I don't recall it showing up in the search either.

Oh well. I think that page is just ripped directly from one of the websites I had linked to. Good source of information. I remember seeing it in that format on a page somewhere also.

No complaints though. Going to go update some links I made to link to their page now.

Am I allowed to mention my Game Making and electronic insanity forum?

Am I allowed to mention my Game Making and electronic insanity forum on my wikipedia page? Or would that be considered advertisement? http://s8.invisionfree.com/Game_Maker_forum/index.php?act=idx ]

Forum Comments

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Jena Six are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Thank you. CJ 20:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I wanted to improve the article by discussing what information we should or should not add to it, before going and just doing it, and having people edit it for being too long and having too much information. Of course that was last year, but, whatever. I think once they got the references done to a creditable newspaper investigation, the article turned out rather good, and very informable. Dream Focus (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Berkeley Breathed

These edits need to be referenced. Please read Misplaced Pages:BLP WhisperToMe (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the talk page of that article, you add a "citation needed" tag, if you believe the article needs another thousand references for every single statement in it, or take a few seconds to Google and find one yourself. Anyway, I added in a line, with a reference, just the facts. I do believe anyone could've just read the previous bit someone had put in there, and then look up the Opus comic strip for that day, and read it themselves if they had any doubts about the claim. Dream Focus (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Neon Genesis Evangelion RE-TAKE

RE-TAKE AfD

You seem to really be getting into it. I support the effort (in my modest, weary way); but I feel I must warn you so you can be emotionally prepared - based on my 4-5 years on Misplaced Pages, the Re-Take AfD doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ending in anything but delete. (I will be shocked if it manages to be a merge, or even a redirect.) --Gwern (contribs) 20:56 12 October 2008 (GMT)

I am honestly trying to figure out what the difference is between webcomics which are based on Final Fantasy, and series like Re-Take. Why is one tolerated, and another not? Dream Focus (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

More coverage in English, basically. Also, webcomics are slowly becoming more mainstream in the English-speaking world while doujins are still extremely niche. --Gwern (contribs) 00:08 14 October 2008 (GMT)

I was looking over the list of awards for web comics and printed media which made them notable, and noticed the lack of any for doujins. They are the same thing though. Also, isn't it odd that hundreds of people on a website listing all mangas, including doujins, give it a good vote, and tens of thousands hit the creator's website each month, but it only takes four people to say they don't like it, to delete an article about it? Its odd isn't it? With just a small number of people you could defend or delete any article you wanted. And how many people bother to check the list of things up for deletion regularly, or put any article on "watch?"

The Gantz article was worked on by dozens of people over the years, who liked how much information it had, then awhile back one guy decided to mass delete 99% of the article, simple because he thought it too long. I was the only one around to revert and argue with him, no one else posting an opinion, so I asked for a third party bit, and by random chance the two people that went over there agreed with him, based on the fact that they didn't like long articles. Long meaning they don't want a list of all the weapons and equipment found in the series, it not that many things, the rules Gantz enforces, etc. I'm thinking we need a separate wikipedia for people who like detailed information about every aspect of things, and have a set logical set of rules, not something vague left to interpretation and personal bias of a small number of random people who happen by. What do you think? Dream Focus (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

policy change

I am sorry that you feel bad that Re-Take is getting deleted; while I personally think it a very bad series, then again, I think the same thing about "Angelic Days" but I am forced to grit my teeth and keep the article on it here: it's not a matter of that I want to push you around or quote rules to my benefit through loopholes (I hate it when people do that): but putting Re-Take here would violate many major rules. The problem is that its unlicensed and unofficial (and you can't really prove that it is "popular"; alright, one of my pet peeves about Re-Take is a think a few people are very hardcore fans about it, but that doesn't mean it has widespread popularity; this doesn't matter though). So if you really want to get it on, you can't just make an article for it: my suggestion would be that you have to bring up for policy debate, "can we include unlicensed fanfiction? and I...guess, that you'd start by going to the "Talk" page of "WikiProject Anime and Manga", and then raising the question there. Look how many other editors on the "Delete" article want to delete it for these reasons; its not a matter of me pushing you, but really, the *current* rules won't allow it. And if its something you really love, your best course would be to try to change the rules. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I have just finished posting my suggested rule changes and a rational for them being necessary. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Suggest_policy_change.__Can_we_include_unlicensed_fanfiction.2Fdoujinshi.3F Dream Focus (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

voltron

Horrified by the senseless destruction of perfectly valid and interesting information on the Voltron article, I informed a key contributor to it of the Wikia, encouraging him to start one there, and become its administrator. Alas, he wasn't interested in that, so I created it myself and copied information over, and added to it just a bit over time. Feel free to join in. Dream Focus 16:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

this is an earlier version also i would recommend checking the voltron article between 6 and 10 of October

Dwanyewest (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia policy about moving information to and then linking to wikis

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction) under the section titled "A note of caution" shows that when different editors see some things as unencylopedic garbage, while others believe it should remain, its best to just move it over to a wiki and add a link.

Part of it reads:

Editors should also take advantage of non-Misplaced Pages wikis that follow the GFDL that may provide more details about a given fictional work. These can not only be used to augment brief descriptions of fictional topics, or can be used to relocate material that has been deemed unsuitable for Misplaced Pages. Links to such wikis should be placed as an external link to the articles in question.

Yep. That's what it says. So I'm going to do that now. Adding in some links. Dream Focus (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Thank you Guettarda Dream Focus (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Main Page pics

§hep • 02:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER

Regarding your response to me in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mayu Sakai: No, WP:ENTERTAINER does not apply -- if you look at the beginning of WP:CREATIVE, it explicitly says that it is the guideline to apply to authors and artists. WP:ENTERTAINER is for actors and other performers (though not musicians, as they're covered by WP:MUSIC). —Quasirandom (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it applies to comedians and opinion makers as well. I believe the manga artist qualifies as that. Dream Focus (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but a manga artist is an author and artist, which is what WP:CREATIVE explicitly is for, so that applies. This has been the consensus in many previous AfDs without controversy. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall it ever coming up before, nor would I care if the small number of people around that day, agreed with something or not, while the majority just decided not to argue. If someone fits in more than one category, then they can be made notable by the set of rules in any of those categories. This is how it is for others who fit more than one category. Unless you find a specific policy saying otherwise, that's what I'll go by. Remember, consensus means the perceived opinions of whatever small number of people were around at that time, who decided to post their opinions, and is that by itself does not become official wikipedia policy. Dream Focus (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

True enough. But it's also true that WP:CREATIVE has been cited as the relevant guideline in many mangaka AfD discussions without anyone batting an eye or disagreeing, and silence did equal consent. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Deletionists

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

Akane-chan Overdrive

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

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

WP:NPA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge discussion at Talk:Tom Tucker (Family Guy)

I've opened a merge discussion at the above-mentioned location. Please consider participating if you are interested. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!

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

Merge straw poll

• Merge straw poll of Tom_Tucker_(Family_Guy) Ikip (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

RE: Wikipedia_talk:User_page#User:Dream_Focus

A prominent editor who deletes a lot of material from Misplaced Pages has your own user page in her sights, guess what her one and only solution is?

She will be stopping by to say hello soon, since I accidentally posted this on her page first. :( Ikip (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

you seem to have some pretty prominent editors who delete a lot of material from Misplaced Pages on your talk page, so you must be doing something right. Ikip (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident

An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiScrubber (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I voted to keep. And for the deletion review I voted to restore it. It wasn't just a regular news item, this one had an important and notable event worthy of an article. Dream Focus 00:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

link wars

i agree with your point of view on wiki links, seems to me it's just another form of edit wars--Legeres (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of SDF-1 Macross

SDF-1 Macross has been nominated for deletion and you were involved in a previous AfD about a different article involving the same cartoon series. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SDF-1 Macross. Thank you.--Sloane (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Dog poop girl

"it was a historical and noteworthy event"? Someone's dog shitting on a subway train was a historical event? Please have a think about that concept. (Now you've had a think about it, have a look at the points on the DRV - whilst there's no problem with the event being mentioned in Internet vigilantism, it's not notable outside that context, with no sources that discuss it outside that context). Thanks, Black Kite 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It caused a large number of people to go online, and publicly shame someone for their actions. The cultural affect is that no one else would dare do the same thing, fearing the same response. That in itself is notable. And didn't most people say Keep? The consensus of the editors discussing this, not your own personal opinion, is what matters. Don't play God, and do whatever you want, ignoring the opinions of everyone else. That isn't what administrators are suppose to do, otherwise the AFD wouldn't existed at all. Dream Focus 22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You hit the nail right on the head - the single notable thing about the event is the cultural effect ... which is discussed in Internet vigilantism, which is where the information currently is. And that's exactly what administrators are supposed to do. Black Kite 23:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Misplaced Pages. --neon white talk 22:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:American Involvement in Haiti/Temp

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 14:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had erased all the copyrighted stuff. I searched for the part with the date between quotation marks, and didn't find anything. Doesn't matter. I kept finding contradicting information when I went looking for information, and the sites I found seem to be a bit bias. One says a worker makes enough in a month to rent a shack, and that food cost too much, and then they are cheated out of their wages as often as possible. If that were all true, then they'd have less than 0 income, and would starve to death. Also, their current minimum wage is much higher than it previous was, so it is better than they'd make as farmers. The article has potential I suppose, its just hard to find information on it. They mention a study done by someone from a university, but I searched around and can't find proof that ever existed. Seems a bit odd. Anyway, delete it if you want to. Dream Focus 16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

All right, I'll do so. If at some point somebody creates a clear article under the subject, so much the better. :) Thanks for your efforts to save it. --Moonriddengirl 17:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer

Hi, you just removed a prod template from Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer. Your rational was WP:GHITS, which is specifically not a valid deletion argument. I have nominated the page for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer and your comments would be appreciated. Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That many people reading it, makes it notable as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, you won't find any official results until someone can determine what the proper Japanese title is, since it isn't what is listed there. I'm still searching for information about that. Dream Focus 18:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Sloane (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the rule is only if I reverted the same person. I reverted you last time, since you didn't have a reason to be removing the tag, you stating only your belief that the article was going to be deleted anyway, so it didn't matter. That is NOT a valid reason to remove the rescue tag. And you did not talk about it, or form a consensus. Two editors have stated it should be there. Dream Focus 02:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The following actions are exceptions to the three-revert rule, and do not count as reverts under the rule's definition.

   * Reverting obvious vandalism ... adding or removing tags

The only reason why anyone would be trying to delete rescue tag, is because they want the article deleted, and don't want anyone on the Rescue squad to come and help save it, as they did similar articles recently. The tag has a legitimate reason to be there, and you do not have the right to remove it. Dream Focus 02:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

3rr

I reported your continued reversions at the Administrators' noticeboard--Sloane (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. So I misunderstood the rules then? Others considered it vandalism also, that they kept trying to delete a tag, they had no right to, without legitimate reason. And since when are any rules absolute? Its all up to interpretation. It was a sincere edit, not disruption, that I did. Anyway, I'll be back in 24 hours, to finish my discussion elsewhere. The whole system is seriously flawed, wikilawyering defeating common sense. Dream Focus 23:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You got shampooed here. Removing a rescue template is remarkably lame, i.e. it's saying "I don't want it rescued, so, who cares if you do." Well, imagine if you tried removing an AfD template on the same premise. Ridiculous. Sincerely, --A Nobody 01:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I see he removed the tag again once I was banned. Glad you were there to revert his obvious vandalism. Dream Focus 02:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You are blocked, not banned. There is a big difference. Also, ironically, the editor who reported you above is himself edit warring over adding a template at here, so hopefully everyone will be addressed equally and fairly. Sincerely, --A Nobody 03:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

I wanted to thank you for your voice of support in the AfD article on The Motley Moose. It is most appreciated; I am glad someone took the time to actually look over the points presented! Cordially, 137.54.5.14 (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• merge

One entry found.

Function: verb

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

synonyms see mix

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

• 'delete

One entry found.

Function: transitive verb

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

On behalf of the Misplaced Pages:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Misplaced Pages:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Top of the morning to you laddy, or whatever it is they are sterotyped as saying over there. Dream Focus 05:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability for Manga

Seeing your interest in establishing notability in manga, I'm inviting you to take a look at and comment on User:NocturneNoir/Sandbox/Notability (manga). Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR 21:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I use those arguments in the AFD all the time to try to save manga, sometimes succeeding. Depends on who is around the day to vote. Tried discussing it on the notability book guideline page before, and nothing came of it. Dream Focus 22:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chase Meridian merge

Hello, there is a proposal to merge an article you recently discussed here. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

About 3RR...

You do know that you file a complaint if the editor made more than 3 reverts within a 24-hour period, right? Kinda odd that you didn't note Edokter's proximal edits that actually go further than mine, and don't have the enefit of our policies to back them up. I will ask you, politely, to withdraw the 3RR complaint (a complaint that you failed to notify me of, btw). - Arcayne () 18:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted on your talk page just before filing the complaint. And I didn't notice it wasn't within a 24 hour period. And Edokter was reverting your vandalism, so it wasn't a problem. Dream Focus 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and presume you an extremely new user; otherwise, I would have to file a complaint for accusing me of vandalism. Maybe you should learn a LOT more about the policies you think you are enforcing. As well, you should learn to count reverts before filing at AN/3RR, as its considered disruptive to accuse me of violating the 3RR rule when I've actually only reverted twice. Consider yourself warned. - Arcayne () 22:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You are a very rude person. And I didn't do anything you can file a report on. Dream Focus 22:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring noticeboard

• Please note: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Result_22. Black Kite 22:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I hadn't noticed the time when reporting it. I'll be glad to have someone watch it though. The same person erasing the same exact information half dozen times or so, seems a bit disruptive. Dream Focus 22:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

You are canvassing: "Important discussions sometimes happen at remote locations in Misplaced Pages, so editors might be tempted to publicize this discussion by mass-mailing other Wikipedians. Even if the goal is not to influence the outcome of the debate, indiscriminately sending announcements to uninvolved editors is considered "talk-page spamming" (or e-mail spamming) and therefore disruptive." I strongly recommend that you withdraw all talk page messages. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked. It isn't canvassing as long as you tell everyone who posted there. Administrators agreed. Canvassing is only if I contacted those who voted a certain way. Dream Focus 04:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dream Focus on this one. He notified both editors who argued to keep as well as delete, i.e. he notified those with whom he disagreed and who are likely to argue opposite of him. As such, in this case it is not canvassing. Sincerely, --A Nobody 04:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the specific passage that I cited. It has nothing to do with tone and everything to do with attracting attention, especially when the consensus was not going to be in his favor. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The chart says it qualifies as a friendly notice, and is thus allowed. There was clearly Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open Transparency. Not a problem at all. I was going to do this earlier, but was trying to find the right tool, and got distracted, then just went ahead and did it by hand. Dream Focus 04:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree that there was limited posting... I've seen a few dozen proposed mergers, and they don't even get a half dozen opinions involved. The involvement with this one is pretty hefty, IMO. :P —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Limited as to the number of people contacted, was limited to that list. It wasn't just randomly posting all over the place, trying to get noticed everywhere. Dream Focus 04:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Erik on this; you were canvassing, and the admin in question did not in fact agree with your behavior, and Protonk told you as much. Even after that, you go ahead and continue to canvass? Wait, don't do anything for a little bit; I want to pop some popcorn and get a seat with a good view of the coming dramahz. - Arcayne () 05:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"and you appear to not be interested in canvassing per se, I don't see the merit in continuing this discussion. Protonk (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)" Did you read that part? We worked it out. As long as everyone is contacted, it is not canvassing. Dream Focus 10:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Erik, Arcayne stop please stop. I don't see any outrage when editors who support deletion and merging such as User:New_Age_Retro_Hippie who did the exact same thing that Dream Focus does,Talk:Tom_Tucker_(Family_Guy)#So_we_need_a_merge_discussion, in which Protonk got an message to: User_talk:Protonk#Merge_discussion_at_Talk:Tom_Tucker_.28Family_Guy.29. There is no canvas violation here so please leave Dream focus alone. Why not address this on Protunk's page, instead of making the drama spill over to his talk page?

Thank you. Maybe you need an advocate Dream, someone who officially can help you avoid this harrassment, who can counsel you on and off wiki? Ikip (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, thank you, but its alright. Maybe he just read the first part, and didn't bother reading farther down to the part we worked it out. It happens. Dream Focus 15:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved from: User Talk:Ikip:

You'll have to excuse me for not being aware of the extensive discussion on Protonk's talk page; I have not encountered Dream Focus before the popular culture AfD. Regardless of others' opinions, I still disagree with his action to contact those involved with that AfD, not because their opinions don't matter, but because the merge discussion already had a healthy number of editors weighing in to shape consensus. The talk page spamming, like I quoted from the guideline, seemed disruptive. Anyway, what's done is done, and I don't plan to pursue the matter anymore, so I take offense to your accusation of harassing him, especially considering that I have not met him before. I plan to move on and see how the film's cultural impact can best be presented. Thanks. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize Erik, I refactored my comments. Thank you for letting me know your concerns. I sincerely hope these modifications address some of the concerns you have. Best wishes in your editing.Ikip (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment on an AfD?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody 07:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I use to raise rabbits. When Christianity was spreading in the old Roman empire, they said hey, you can keep your holidays, but now we dedicate them for a new purpose. So, the fertility festival, celebrated by rabbits and eggs, the symbols of fertility, was rededicated to the resurrection of Jesus. Romans also have in their history a now extinct and thus unprovable species of rabbit that actually laid eggs. I find that more believable than the beaver duck crossbreed that has fur, but lays eggs, that the Australians still claim exist to this day. Dream Focus 02:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Google search

Hi, Dream Focus. Just noticed your Village Pump proposal, and I think your Google search may not be doing quite what you want. I tried it and it didn't pull up the "fancruft"-tagged Wiki articles. Shouldn't it be more like THIS? This seems to pull up the articles your search wants to find. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

RfA Thankspam

Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark 22:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa

April 2009

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

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

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

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

testing out this subpage thing

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

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

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

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

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

Collapsing talkpage sections

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

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

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

Question about the current rules about fictional characters

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ANotability_(fiction)&diff=282794101&oldid=282782136 Apparently a decision was made by a small number of people, on April 9th, which could affect a vast number of articles. Previously articles were saved if the fictional character was found in more than one source. But, as brought up in Malus_Darkblade recently, it seems it now says that the countless thousands of articles for any fictional character, should be deleted. Anyone feel like discussing that with me? Notice how few people decided this, against the protests of others? Should such a small number of people decide something so great? They didn't like the character articles, so changed it, so they now had an excuse to delete them outright. Of course I've been seeing character articles sent to AFD for months now, sometimes they being saved, and sometimes not.

The most important part that has been deleted is:

• Importance of the fictional work: To justify articles on individual elements, the fictional work from which they come must have produced significant artistic impact, cultural impact, or general popularity. This is shown when the work (not the element) exceeds the relevant notability guidelines.
• Role within the fictional work: The element must be an important element, and its importance must be verifiable. The importance of characters and episodes can be demonstrated through the use of primary or secondary sources, while the importance of other elements must be validated in independent secondary sources.

Dream Focus 09:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam

Please don't WP:SPAM your straw polls to unrelated but supposedly sympathetic to yourviewpoint projects, as you did here. Fram (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comments about not ever seeing that part there before, are rather surprising. It isn't spam, since I'm not advertising something, such as adding something new, but instead restoring something that affects all of us. And I hope everyone goes to and participates on this epic change for wikipedia, since thousands of character articles will be destroyed if we don't add that back in. Dream Focus 10:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now read, thanks to other people, that this was the revised version of the three-prong test. I had only commented on the original one, which had quite different wording. Niether of them even got any consensus, so reintroducing text which never was in an accepted guideline anyway is no use. And if it affects all of us, you should post it at the village pump, not at a specific group of mostly inclusionist editors. That is spamming, pure and simple. Fram (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I responded to this elsewhere. I made a mistake, it not a guideline, there not being one for fiction, it just a suggested guideline. Had it been a major change in a guideline which would result in the deletion of thousands of articles, then an organization based on rescuing articles should be told. Anyway, it appears that its all down to consensus whenever someone tries to delete a character page now, they able to wipe out all of them, depending on who is around at the time to defend them, and who the closing editor is. Dream Focus 12:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Non, they should still not have been told. They are there to make sure that no articles are deleted which could, with improvement, be made according to the policies and guidelines. They are not there to make the guidelines so that no articles get deleted. This is a completely different approach and not the purpose of the ARS at all. And most character pages would not get deleted now (or anytime in the recent past), they would be kept for notable characters, or merged for others, just like it always was in the past few years. Fram (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Some do not consider any characters notable unless they receive mention in a third party media source. They vote delete every time, without a moment's consideration. There have been character pages deleted with only two of the three people that showed up, saying delete. Some try to "merge" all character pages into one lump, as a "compromise". There is no notability guideline that allows you to keep them, just because some believe them notable. It all comes down to whoever is around at the time, to participate in the AFD. Dream Focus 16:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

edit war from two reverts?

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Clone Republic. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --EEMIV (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted you twice, and asked that you wait until we could get a third opinion on our disagreement, before you go and delete that again. Stop harassing/bullying me with idiotic warning tags. And did you read the text you keep deleting? How can you understand the series, without knowing those key aspects? Dream Focus 10:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		The Defender of the Wiki may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Misplaced Pages from being used for fraudulent purposes. Dream Focus, thank you again for your valiant efforts, and being the first person to defend me on ANI. Your efforts are tireless and brave, and I appreciate all of your hard work and dedication. Once you refine the way you interact with editors, you can be an admin someday. You are a true asset to wikipedia, thank you, thank you, thank you. Ikip (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Boldly clarified your proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fancruft template

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

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

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

Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources

If you have time, I'd appreciate your looking in at Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources and either advise or contribute. Schmidt, 21:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. I only clicked a few links, but those seem notable. They aren't trying to sell anything they review, and have a nice easy to read layout. Rotten Tomatoes is already used as a legitimate source for other things, as is Ain't It Cool News. As long as each website has a fair number of original reviews for things, with valid information, then there is no reason why any reasonable person would object. Dream Focus 21:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Policy links to fight off future harassment

Notifying interested people

Misplaced Pages:AFDHOWTO#Notifying_interested_people:

Notifying substantial contributors to the article

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Guide_to_deletion#AfD Wikietiquette:

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

Place a notification on significant pages that link to nomination

Misplaced Pages:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination states:

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

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

Invitation

I am just starting this page: User:Ikip/p, a straw poll for all ARS members to comment in.

I welcome you to comment and contribute. Ikip (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of artists who have covered The Beatles

I would post it there, but I'm afraid that it would make the debate excessively long, so I'll do it here instead.

I would do pages for Leona Lewis' version of Run and Alexandra Burke's version of Hallelujah. However, we had this debate in January 2009 - which leads me to think that the deletionistas who inhabit WP would call for it to be deleted.

Other cover versions that made No1 in the United Kingdom that don't have their own pages include a1's version Take on Me, two people from Pop Idol in 2003 covering With a Little Help from My Friends (incidentally, that's missing from the article) and Westlife doing You Raise Me Up (although the latter article could do with some revamping - two versions of it made the British top 10 in 2005/6). I fear the same sort of scenario would happen in all of these situations. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(Also - since I like to keep everything together, put your response here. I have this on my watchlist.)

That is insane! If it sold that many copies, it clearly qualifies for its own article. The fact that someone else song it before hand, isn't relevant. Some people just want the fewest wikipedia articles possible, or just seem to enjoy deleting things. Total madness. Consensus is based on whoever is around at the time to comment, as well as who the closing editor is(some would've ruled no consensus and left it be). The same articles get nominated for deletion multiple times, even after consensus was keep, while other articles that are deleted, get recreated and are kept. Easier to destroy, than it is to create, unfortunately. Dream Focus 18:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Yes, the Leona Lewis version of "Run" is clearly notable, and would qualify for its own article. No-one's arguing that. The issue is - is it better and easier for our readers in its own article, or would it be better as a section of the Snow Patrol article? After all, it's the same song. This is a style issue, not a deletion one. Black Kite 18:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So even if it meets the requirements, clearly notable you say, people can delete it anyway because they personally don't like it? I thought not liking something, wasn't a valid excuse for deletion. Dream Focus 18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No. The person above has got the wrong idea based on the deletion discussion that he mentioned (which had JamesBurns socks in it, if you notice). If he created separate pages for the "Run" single or the "Hallelujah" one, they would clearly be notable (they were both No.1 singles in the UK) and if they went to AfD they'd probably be kept. (Especially the "Run" one - after all it was more succesful in the charts than the original!) But sometimes they get merged - sometimes cover versions are better in a separate article, and sometimes they're better in one article, it's a matter of style. Remember the articles are about the song as a whole, not the individual versions. Therefore, for a song with a lot of cover versions, it'd be madness to have an indidivual article for each one. There's no question of deleting anything, just where the information is going to be. Black Kite 10:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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.
• When independent editors attempt to help resolve things Scuro has claimed they were not focusing on the issue
• But the big thing is just the volume of text. Anyway have to go. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong in the links you provided. Keep this on the official discussion for it. And you aren't suppose to complain about someone like that, instead of the issue itself. Focusing on the issue, not the user, is one of the wikipedia policies. Dream Focus 21:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Understandable. I try to exclusively deal with references on Misplaced Pages.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

MASH

• Don't forget to express your opinion one way or the other at all the List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1). Every episode has been nominated individually and there is only a few days left for the comments period to remain open. Even the pilot is up for deletion, and it was nominated for multiple awards. Your opinion one way or the other will determine if the nominator moves on to season two, and starts the process again. 24 episodes are up for deletion, some don't have full plot summaries added yet, but the vote determines whether the episodes have the right to exist to be expanded upon later. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had posted in them all. Someone should combine all nominations as one, if they are going to be nominated all at once. Dream Focus 08:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1) I look over any whose link color indicates I hadn't visited that article yet, then clicked it, and from there the article for deletion nomination. I think I got them all now. Feel free to post my default response if you see any I missed, or find any other episodes that had millions of viewers and yet was still nominated for deletion. It is ridiculous we don't have a wikipedia wide vote, and determine a set standard on what remains and what doesn't, by the consensus of everyone, thus eliminating problems like this from constantly coming up. Dream Focus 08:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• He is already moving on to season two: 5 O’Clock Charlie --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, I am forced to follow along behind Richard Arthur Norton to defend myself against his baseless accusations and alarmism. That was nominated at the same time as all these other episodes. Please stop all the nonsense hand-waving and Bad Faith harassment.

Further, I notice Richard Arthur Norton's canvassing actions above. ThuranX (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No.

I will continue to nominate the m individually, because indiividually is how they need to be considered. Besides, inclusionists always, ALWAYS, crush mass noms of episodes with repeated votes of bad faith nominations, ensuring that no individual episodes are actually considered, turning the arguement into some SOAPBOX mess about Notability policy being flawed because if someone bothered to write an article then surely whatever they wrote about must've been notable to them and therefore must be kept. I will nominate each, and find that the vanity presses and tv guide listings currently being used are insufficient. None of those are Reliable Sources for proof of actual Real World Notability. ThuranX (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The outcome will be the same no matter what. As long as people who vote in one episode, notice that the same exact thing is elsewhere, they'll go there instead and say the same thing. Shouldn't you wait to see the outcome of the current season being nominated, before trying to destroy the episode articles for another season? And while you are here, tell me, do you believe that deleting articles that some might find interesting to read, you are helping the wikipedia, and if so, how? Would these articles hurt the wikipedia in any possible way, if allowed to remain? Dream Focus 19:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

participation in projects

You will not help the project by asking people to leave it. If nothing else, it's a sure way of getting them to dislike it and what it does. Yes, there is inefficiency and conflict from Misplaced Pages being an open project, but that it is an open project is still the most important positive thing about what we do here. DGG (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Does it help the project to have one editor constantly arguing with people and causing problems? More people are discouraged from joining or participating, seeing nothing but conflict filling up the project page, and so after a short time just ignoring it altogether. And those who dislike the project, do so because their efforts to mindless destroy something they don't like, have failed at times because of the attention it brings to those articles. Dream Focus 22:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"constantly arguing with people and causing problems" actually describes several editors' contributions at Ars talk. pablo_hablo. 23:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments like " … are you even in the Rescue Squadron? Stop messing with our FAQ" don't help the project either. pablo_hablo. 09:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So letting someone edit the FAQ to change the meaning of one part to say the opposite, would be? Dream Focus 09:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I did not mention the edit, or your subsequent reversion, either favourably or otherwise. Your edit summary is what I was referring to, because that is where you made the comment which I quoted above. pablo_hablo. 10:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Check the members list. You have someone who is not a member of the project, but is trying to change the FAQ, to say the very opposite of what it did before. My edit summary is fine. Dream Focus 10:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The project, like Misplaced Pages, is open. Any editor can edit any page. A name on a list simply means that some people like to put their names on lists. Others do not. "One doesn't get to be an article rescuer by signing a page in the project namespace. One gets to be an article rescuer by rescuing articles. Nothing more, nothing less." pablo_hablo. 11:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strengths of arguments in favor of keeping?

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

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

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

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

Edits to speedy deletion template for Venture Capital Investment Competition

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Venture Capital Investment Competition, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in you being blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. The template says, very clearly: "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself."

Your record with deletion discussion is already compromised. DO NOT REMOVE THE MAINTENANCE TEMPLATE AGAIN.  Logical Premise 18:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone may remove the tag, if they disagree with the speedy deletion. My reason given in the edit summary clearly indicated why. It is not vandalism. That is not a maintenance template. It is a deletion template. Check the rules. Dream Focus 01:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

archiving now

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

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

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

Venture Capital Investment Competition

Hi. It looks to me like User:Astronaut warned you on the talk page, as long ago as 24 April, that references were needed - yet you didn't include them in the article. I don't think you have anything to complain about - if you do, there's always the option of a deletion review. Deb (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't meet the requirements for a speedy delete. Send it to the AFD, and form a consensus. The suggested guidelines say you need third party media coverage, but those are not policy, just suggestions on how to determine if something is notable. It all comes down to consensus. I don't think anyone doubts the subject is notable, if that many notable universities around the world participate in this event. Dream Focus 19:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the person who nominated it for speedy deletion did doubt that the subject is notable - as do I. Deb (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't delete something because you doubted it was notable. AFD exist for a reason. Misplaced Pages doesn't just have Administrators roaming about, taking out things at a whim. You must form proper consensus in an AFD. The creator of the article believed it was notable, as do I, while you and the nominator do not. You take it to the AFD, and discuss it there. Speedy delete is only for certain things, this clearly not one of them. Anyway, you can continue this here at the deletion review. Plenty of newspaper coverage was quickly found by one editor. Dream Focus 11:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Drv for List of extraordinary diseases and conditions

An AfD for this article, which you participated in, was recently closed as "no consensus." I have request a deletion review here .Bali ultimate (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cake in a mug

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Cake in a mug, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. pablo_hablo. 20:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor who told you it wasn't necessary. I gave you a valid reason in the edit summary. There is no possible reason why you'd need anything more for a food article than what you have now linked to. Have you bothered to even look at other food articles? Dream Focus 23:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Heads Up

Your edit history with DreamGuy are mentioned as part of the discussion at WP:ANI#User:DreamGuy and User:174.0.39.30 68.146.162.11 (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Where at exactly? Got a lot of things listed there, my name not seen anywhere. Dream Focus 00:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Rugrats characters - Please reconsider!

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

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

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

Talkback

╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That link doesn't work right. It points to a user of that name, instead of an article. Dream Focus 16:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

archiving

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/France – Papua New Guinea relations

This AfD debate which you participated in, with 9 arguments in favor of deletion and 4 in favor of retention, was just closed by an admin as keep. I've opened a DRV on the matter here .Bali ultimate (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles?

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

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

concerns over admin

For your information, you should read this over broader concerns from many many editors and admins over an admin who you like for his AfD closing manner Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Docu.27s_signature_violates_WP:SIGNATURE . LibStar (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith. I don't know anything about the guy, nor do I care to read about unrelated things. This was something concerning the issue at hand, and it was closed less than 17 hours after it started. I check the administrator's page just now, and found no one contacted him/her until the day after it was over. You can not close something that quickly, without even giving the person a chance to defend themselves. Dream Focus 15:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the full discussion, there is also concerns raised over his fitness as an admin. If you believe that one was closed prematurely, I encourage you to relist at ANI before complaining on talk pages and expecting something to be done. LibStar (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I read the discussion, and noticed it closed the same day, this time because its the wrong place for it. He has been signing just his name without a link to his page, for years now, never seeing a reason to change. You link to a conversation you had with him, about the closing of the bilateral articles, he asking what articles you ever created, and what you were trying to build, you unable to answer it. Why would he respond to someone who goes around trying to mass delete things, without ever actually creating anything? I don't see as how he has done anything wrong. Dream Focus 16:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

he's an admin, he shouldn't prejudge editors and answer questions when asked. of course you don't agree with the consensus that there are concerns over him. then again you do like admins that support your cause. without ever actually creating anything your prejudices and incorrect assumptions work again! see . you are wrong! LibStar (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And you couldn't just answer him with that link before? Show that you have actually done work on these articles, and aren't just trying to mass delete everyone of them? And any discussion you have without the administrator being there, or which close the same day for no apparent reason at all than to stop opposing viewpoints from having time to be expressed, isn't valid. Do it properly, or no one can realistically expect to take it seriously. Dream Focus 16:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I love how you somehow spin this to my conversation with Docu...he never asked nor accused me of being a mass deletionist. I'm guessing you're not going to retract your accusation nor acknowledge my work on creating bilateral articles. I believe there's a lot of notable pairings that were totally missed and should be created. so just a reminder, don't go around making unjustified presumptions of people as evidenced in this conversation. LibStar (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

and here's another one Australia – East Timor relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) created by someone you would regard as a deletionist Bali ultimate. LibStar (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• , You seem to be trying to get him to admit he closed something wrong, while he is trying to reason with you that it isn't a vote, and he closed it properly. Anyway, you've destroyed far more than you ever created, and without any justifiable reason. Government websites are notable resources, there no one who would honestly doubt the treaty information on one as valid. There is no greater source for information of this type. To delete something because it wasn't mentioned in any newspaper written in a language anyone can search through, is rather ridiculous. Argue the same cycle with me in the AFDs and not here please, I really don't see any way to get through to someone locked into your mode of thinking, and don't want to be bothered with it. Dream Focus 18:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

and without any justifiable reason. I always do google news searches and check foreign ministry websites (where possible). I nominate articles because I believe they fail WP:N and WP:GNG, specifically significant third party coverage. that is clearly stated in these guidelines. Government websites are good to verify treaties but not necessarily to independently establish notability. I know you don't like bilateral articles being deleted, if you are unhappy with any of the deletions, request a deletion review and perhaps say "was deleted without any justifiable reason" and stop whinging. We have established procedures and processes in Misplaced Pages, these are the rules we all play by. I know if you had your way nothing would be deleted but that's not how Misplaced Pages works. Again you're happy to discount the creations I make, I'm all for notable bilateral relations to exist. LibStar (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Guidelines = suggestions, not actual rules. Discussed that too many places already. See here. Also check out Common sense and Ignore all rules. Dream Focus 09:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on displaying time since last edit

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

Re: Merge

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 |  00:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Telepathy and war

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

update

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

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

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

Sources for Types of Gestures

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

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

Clone Republic Tech

Sorry, haven't logged in for ages.

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

Edit summaries

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

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