Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:31, 29 November 2009

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – #193

Archives
	♫♫♫♫♫ Dream Focus
	Conflicts
	Interaction with others
	Bilateral discussions
	storage
	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.

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)

Seasons Greetings

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

Main Page pics

§hep • 02:09, 24 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)

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• merge

One entry found.

Function: verb

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

synonyms see mix

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

• 'delete

One entry found.

Function: transitive verb

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

archiving

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

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

Articles?

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friendly notice regarding Islamic toilet etiquette

I've reverted Islamic toilet etiquette to be a redirect again. Although vandalism alone is not reason to redirect, it was the catalyst for a redirect that I believe was already overdue. If you still disagree, please respond at Talk:Islamic toilet etiquette as I will not be monitoring this page. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Brooke Greenberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Bastille Day!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

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

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

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

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

Ultima characters

Now that keeping them merged is the consensus, if I redirect them, will you accept that? TTN (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Having two or three people show up and state that something should be merged/deleted/redirected, and some of them just those who hang out at that portal/project/whatever all the time anyway, is not a consensus. So no, I will not accept the mindless elimination of perfectly valid articles, nor a large chunk of their content. What exactly do you gain by destroying what others have worked so hard at? If you insist on proceeding, I'll just contact everyone who ever contributed to these articles, and ask them to join in the discussion(since its their contributions affected, they should know if someone is going to eliminate their hard work). Three people should not destroy in one afternoon, something that dozens have made over the years. Dream Focus 15:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, while you don't agree, that is how consensus is usually formed. If someone were to actually care about these articles, they would have most likely noticed the back and forth reverting and the merge tags. Canvassing and annoying people with a generic message about an article they likely don't care about is rather pointless. I guess my basic question is: Will you edit war over them?

But really, do you actually think the only way for a character to be considered important is for it to have its own article? The same exact content is found within the list entry. It's just cleaned up and focused. Even if left in the state that they are now, they would still have to be cut down to that size. The only change is that they're all on the same page. TTN (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't possible to have every article you ever worked on and care about on your watchlist to monitor every little change that ever happens. There is no automatic message to tell people when something is up for deletion/merge/redirect(same thing). Having a very small group of people form a project, and then go around deciding that every single type of article out there they personally don't like must be destroyed, and that this somehow would help the wikipedia, is not acceptable. You nominated one Ultima article for deletion, and the consensus so far seems to be keep. If you try to destroy the rest in the same way, it'll be the same. The consensus of most people is to preserve these types of articles, not rampage around mindlessly destroying them. And there is no reason to cut down the articles either. The content is split into separate articles for size concerns, and that size isn't a problem. The only people that noticed the merge discussion and participated, other than myself, appear to be people in your project, no one else noticing and participating at all. So you get rather bias results. Dream Focus 16:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I contacted the top 5 contributors who made the most edits to the Lord British article, other than myself to get some additional input here. Two state their interest in the Ultima articles on their user pages even, so will want to know what's going on. Please hold off any action until they have time to join in the discussion. Dream Focus 17:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Cut and paste

I have started to actively avoid letting discussions spill over to editors talk pages. When these discussions do end up on my talk page, I cut and paste them to the relevant page. So, for example, you can cut and paste Ultima conversation to the Ultima page.

In addition, you can delete anything on your talk page, but it is probably more courteous to cut and paste it elsewhere. Ikip (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good idea. Doesn't happen often, so no big deal though. Dream Focus 14:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd-WMC

I notice you've commented on the arbcomm case. Do you perhaps have anything to declare? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Only that it seems like you really abuse your power, and I hope they take away your administrator abilities soon. Dream Focus 00:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Weren't you involved in prod work at one time?

Dream, weren't you involved with prod work at one time? User_talk:ThaddeusB#Congratulations.2C_barnstar.2C_and_Invitation another editor and I got to talking, he makes the incredible statment that, "I patrol every single expiring prod to look for Notable topics that need dePRODed and not exactly notable topics that should still be preserved through merges." drop him a visit and say hello. Ikip (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I brought that up before, and was told a lot of people patrol the prods. There is no way for everyone to keep watch over everything though, there just too much stuff to sort through. And most prods are done by the same small number of people that use them to avoid going to an AFD, where others might keep the article they want to destroy. They also use the tactic of just replacing an article with a redirect or "merge". Dream Focus 02:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Dream, my view on merging/redirecting has become more like DGG on fictional characters, my view is starting to become that when an article is merged, that article is still available, just merged.

I noticed your comments on the ultima talk page, and I was wondering what your views are. What character pages should be merged? Maybe if they had a big fictional template on the top of every character page, but that would probably never satisfy some editors who delete. Ikip (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I will ask Colonel about the PROD thing. Ikip (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with what you say, except that merge = delete. Ikip (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your name came up on my talk page. If you decide to visit, play nice please. Ikip (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I patrol prods. My impression is that most of them are placed by new article patrollers when there is no applicable speedy deletion criterion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There was an exhastive selective study on prods by an editor. He came to the same conclusion. Ikip (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the prods I see are done by a very few people at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Anime_and_manga and while some are new articles, most of them have been around for a rather long period of time. Its a delete, without the attention and possible protest of an AFD. You could probably check to see how many prods placed by an editor were removed, and how many went to AFD after that and survived as keeps or no consensus. Dream Focus 15:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

3rr warning

on Lord British. I just warned both of you. Ikip (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh

Whatever automated process you are using is leaving messages in inappropriate places, like the (typically non-existent) talk pages of people's userbox subpages . Please exclude anything with a / from your list. –xeno 15:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No bot. I Googled for those who had the Ultima game series template on their user page, and then clicked that and pasted the same message to them. Dream Focus 15:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Then you should follow the breadcrumb to their user talk page. FWIW, using "Whatlinkshere" would've been easier than googling. –xeno 15:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! I forgot about that. And I thought some people just have a lot of stuff on their user page, not realizing it wasn't a person. Sorry about that. Dream Focus 15:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a huge deal. Just make sure you're at the main user talk page and not a user talk subpage, which I'm sure most people would never notice and would prefer not be created. You may wish to contact these 4 people again, I've deleted the subpages you created. –xeno 15:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Recurring characters in The Legend of Zelda series

I think you miss the point... those characters have been sitting there on nothing more than "how many times they have appeared", completely taking the importance of their appearances into question. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That is the point of the article. To show recurring characters, no matter how important or not they are. The list isn't complete without showing everyone. If they aren't important, then a lesser mention perhaps, but not an outright elimination. Dream Focus 23:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information". We can't erase Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies by making our own rules. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The characters are notable because they are recurring in various series, a key point in the games. Shows how the creative or development process goes perhaps. It doesn't list all characters, only those who have been in multiple games, so it isn't indiscriminate. Dream Focus 23:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So if I make a list of every Zelda character but one, it's discriminate? Being notable to the Zelda series means nothing, whatsoever. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been reported for violating the 3 revert rule

Sorry, I don't have the fancy link for you, you can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring at the bottom, just below yours. C2SP (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd laugh, but that is just so sad. I am not working for the company and inserting ads, and you don't understand what three revert rule is all about. Dream Focus 02:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dream Focus. Your statement is, in my view a misunderstanding of the rules: The rule is you can not revert the same thing more than three times in a 24 hour period. Editing different unrelated sections during that time period doesn't count.

Your theory is not consistent with the actual language of WP:REVERT; you have made four genuine reverts and so has the other guy. I have my own opinion as to who is correct in this dispute, but that won't help you. Please leave a comment in the 3RR promising to stop warring on this topic to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I just commented. The first three things listed happened days ago, and had nothing to do with this particular edit even, and they were all three different unrelated edits to different parts of the article. The first edit today, was me seeing two unnecessary words in what was the current version of the article at time, and I removed them, the guy editing before me not the one who I later reverted. What I reverted was done three times by C2SP, against consensus. Two other editors have reverted him as well and tried to speak to him on the article talk page, and his own. There was one link to an edit made today, of a section not involved in this at all. Dream Focus 03:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition of a good article

The main goal of this site is to have every article reach its maximum quality. I think we can agree on that. To achieve that goal, we have the rating system that includes Good articles and Featured articles. Most often, if an article is unable to reach GA status through work, and it has a parent article, it is merged in order to help the parent improve. That is the case for most video game characters. Please take a look at the current GA video game characters (Aerith Gainsborough, Ayu Tsukimiya, Iori Yagami, Soma Cruz, and 29 more over at WP:GA), and then tell me if any of Ultima characters are currently of that quality. If they aren't, please go find some sources, and work the articles into that condition. I'm sure members of the project will help look if you stop acting like everyone wants to beat these articles with crowbars. If you cannot do that, allow us to keep the merged, work on the list, and hopefully you can get it to the point of Characters of Kingdom Hearts. TTN (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Most people do not care about such nonsense. You need to get over yourselves. There are sources that have already proven it is notable. Most people have agreed with me on that, and are against the pointless merge. Just but the content of the article, the valid information, not how well you think it is presented. Dream Focus 16:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So the entire purpose of this site is nonsense? Lord Britain is just as good an article as Master Chief (Halo), and there is no reason to even think that Lord Britain should be improved to fit that standard? TTN (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You do NOT improve an article by destroying it. Simple as that. It meets all requirements through references in the article, to exist. Follow the rules. Notability has been established. You don't destroy something simply because you don't like it, or how its written. Dream Focus 17:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Did I just ask you to let it be merged outright? No. I asked you to please look for sources to establish the article. It meets your interpretations of the requirements, but it obviously does not meet the general standard. Otherwise, we would not be doing this. Seriously, what is with this lack of trust? There are a dozen people who would help you improve the articles, but instead, you just think they're trying to trim them just because they don't like the topic. Remember, these are people from the video game project. There is no logical reason for them to hate Ultima, but love every other series out there. TTN (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want improve the article, in a way that doesn't involve erasing large chunks of it, by all means, do so. The Wired magazine reference alone meets all notability requirements for Lord British, stating the importance of the character, and how it changed the industry when he was assassinated in Ultima Online. Dream Focus 17:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That is the only way to improve them. Again, do you really believe that the Ultima character articles are of the same quality the good articles up there or Master Chief? All of those article have plenty of real world information. The Ultima articles have a few sentences each. Please look at WP:N, and notice the words "significant coverage." Two or three sources do not equal significant coverage in any way. In order for the Ultima articles to match the good articles, they need to be trimmed and refocused. TTN (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

At Avatar and Lord British. bridies (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I keep count of how many of your horrible reverts you have. I notice you destroyed the edit history and talk page as well. Dream Focus 18:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello, Dream Focus. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding your disruptive behavior. The thread is Ultima-series character articles and User:Dream Focus. Thank you.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Going there now. Dream Focus 18:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)

The Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 1 (September 2009) Content News and announcements Want ads Feature: Article rescue as a team effort Featured editor: MichaelQSchmidt

Rollback?

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

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

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

Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell

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

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

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

Ultima article and Ultima II

Hey there! I don't understand why you undid my edit to the Ultima (series) article. I completely agree that Ultima II mentions Earth, but edit was done because Ultima II never mentions Sosaria/Britannia. Even though this was ret-conned in later games, the game itself is centered only on Earth. I'll try to re-edit the article to reflect this, but if you don't agree, please discuss it on the article's Talk page or leave me a line.Sega381 (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Just looked it up in the Official Book of Ultima. Lord British's castle and Lord British himself is in this game. You have magic in the game as well. So it was always in Britannia. It also mentions the destinations of the Sun, the real planets, and Planet X. 9 million B.C. Pagnea, to 2112A.D. aftermath. You could go all over, connecting various times and locations. The continents were quite different, Lord British and his castle and all the magic and whatnot, on a different looking continent than the rest. I have that old game, so I'll go look at the box and the contents and see what it says. Dream Focus 23:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Searching the Ultima Online site where maps and information about the older Ultimas is at, I read that: Lord British in his castle on the British Isles in either BC or AD. (Hes a long lived SOB, eh?) Pagnea is where all the continents were still one, in the Time of Legends, I confused by that. Oh well, my mistake. Sorry. You can travel to other planets though. Mentioning how many time periods there are, I think would be a nice bit for the article. Why do I remember seeing an orc at McDonald's? They had monsters from Britannia/Sosaria throughout Earth to fight. Dream Focus 23:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

When she opened the time door to get to early Earth, she ripped up the fabric of space and time, bringing hordes of monsters with her to Earth, and opening time doors to various time periods. Lord British escaped to an earlier time, and then from there called forth the Stranger, who then saved the day. But Lord British wrote the history back in Britannia, so perhaps he'd not mention this other world called Earth to the people there, but still wanted to record the history. There is probably a site out there listing the dialog and manual information for all Ultima games, related to the changing history in the games themselves. Dream Focus 23:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's kinda weird. I guess they didn't think it through when they created the plot for the game, and that's it. MY personal take is something similar to what you say, that Minax somehow merged Earth and Sosaria with the whole time doors mess. Though in the game manual (I have it, I just checked), there is absolutely no mention of Sosaria, and several mentions of Earth. Later manuals imply that it happened on Sosaria, but don't try to explain how Earth was thrown in; they usually don't go into much detail about Ultima II, so the reader gets the impression that Ultima II happened on Sosaria, and there was no mixup with Earth. In any event, I think it's fine the way you reworded it in the Ultima (series) article.--Sega381 (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Elvis's_Twin_Sister

Looks like i answered your relevant question about the google books. Ikip (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Logan Lynn

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

Manon Batiste

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

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

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

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

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

Elvis's Twin Sister

I didn't feel a need to start the discussion on the Talk page, since it had already been addressed on the AfD page, and there were no references to notability on the AfD page, nor are there any on the article. Your removal of the notable tag was inappropriate, since there are still no sources to prove that it's notable. Just waving your hand dismissively and saying it's obvious is not on. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The third party option thing says at the top, that you need to try to resolve disputes on the talk page, before asking for a third party's opinion. Dream Focus 00:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with removing the "notable" tag? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Your comments at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Pokémon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merging articles

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

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

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

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

Polanski

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take care

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

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

Courtesy

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

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

Thanks

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

Taking the bait

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of stereoscopic video games

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

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

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 19:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Human suit

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

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

Your user page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aruna Shanbhag

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

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

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

Apelbaum Patent Notability Question

Hi DreamFocus,

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

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

File:Barbarain II cover art.jpg

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

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

Advisory

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

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

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

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

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

Human suit recreated as Human disguise

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

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

The Resilient Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I am proud to award you this barnstar for your continued excellent work improving Human disguise. Such efforts greatly inprove the project. Good job! Schmidt, 21:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

For resiliently ignoring policy and guidelines, and feeling your own WP:OR trumps everything? I have seen no improving edits at this article made by any of the ARS regulars. It's very disappointing that your sole aim seems to be trivialising and damaging the project. Verbal chat 22:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean keeping articles which people actually want to read, as opposed to mass destroying most of Misplaced Pages simply because some people don't like it? You believe its better to destroy content, instead of adding it. Shameful really. Dream Focus 01:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody 23:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

About reference you added to Na Na Na Na

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

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

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

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

Humanx Commonwealth lists

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

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

There are a couple of issues with your mergers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roman Polanski

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

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

Windows Police Pro

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thanks for your work on Windows Police Pro! I tagged it for rescue, and it was saved! I put it in the Hall of Fame. (Now maybe you wouldn't mind sending this barnstar back at me too?) The Arbiter★ 01:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of Star Wars

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

WQA

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

Concurrence

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

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

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

Dude...

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar to Dream Focus for helping to save Human disguise , your unfailing loyalty to the cause of saving other folk's work from destruction, and above all for always caring about the common good in a place where thats all too rare. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Seconded! Keep up the good work! Sincerely, --A Nobody 15:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

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

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

Star Trek (film)

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

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

User_talk:DGG#Transwiki_request

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

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Wikihounding versus wikistalking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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