User talk:Dream Focus/conflicts

By request, I'm making a side page to archive all conflicts I've had. This will make my main user page easier to get through, it previously taking long to load up.

I believe in permanent records, since the same people seem to keep bringing up the same things time and again. Much easier for anyone interested to find things this way, instead of searching through generic titled archive pages.

Conflicts, and how they worked out

Jena 6 Forum comments

Forum Comments

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

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

Berkeley Breathed article

Berkeley Breathed

These edits need to be referenced. Please read Wikipedia:BLP WhisperToMe (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Total Annihilation: Kingdoms

The "garbage" I moved into Total Annihilation: Kingdoms

I would say something regarding AGF, but I totally messed up and merged the material (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards received by Total Annihilation) to the wrong article; it should have been moved to Total Annihilation. For that, I get a second helping of trout! Sorry for the mess-up; I will revert the merge and redo it. MuZemike (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, you already took care of it, so I will leave as-is. FYI, I would be the last person to "jam garbage" (aka cruft) into an article without good reason, like a merge resulting from an AFD. MuZemike (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The garbage was the list of locations, not the awards. I erased the list of locations, which in fact was garbage, it doubling the size of the article with things you never needed to know in the game or would care about. No problems with the awards being there since that is relevant to the game. But its for TA, not TA: K. Oh well. Dream Focus (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The fact remained that it had to be merged as a result of the recently-closed AFD. I would otherwise very much agree with you that it's unnecessary and excess information. But hey, that's what happens sometimes when users want such information merged just for the sake of inclusion. MuZemike (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

old conflict that never seems to end

Messages

Re this, if you have a personal comment for a specific editor, leave it on their talk page, not the article talk page. I've read and removed it since it had nothing to do with the article and was just a personal message for me. Also, do not use comments to make bad faith remarks as you did here. I did not delete it impulsively, and despite your edit summary I see you did nothing but restore a fairly useless line without an actual source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a personal attack against you. Assume good faith. When you deleted the part of the article someone had just added, your stated reason was "source?". As I pointed out on the talk page, it took me a few seconds to look it up on Google, and find that Amazon sold it. And my comment was about something related to the article, and thus had a reason to be on the talk page for that article. And I did not simply "restore a fairly useless line", but in fact something valid to the article itself. You have a history of compulsively deleting things, and then claiming everyone is making personal attacks against you. Dream Focus (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your message was personally directed, not about the article in general. You didn't just restore and said "source found" you specifically attacked me for not having time to go do someone else's work. Nor was the message about the article at all, it was purely you making a comment at me. And your last remark only shows you were not AGFing but looking for an excuse to make a snide remark about me. I do not have a history of "compulsively deleting" and I only note a personal attack when there is one, such as in that statement which is obviously intended to be an insult. I also undid your recent edit as you completely messed up the reference. Amazon.com is the publisher of Amazon.co.jp, NOT Shueisha, nor is it necessary or desirable to shove an IBSN in the middle of the text for a minor work. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"you specifically attacked me for not having time to go do someone else's work." Someone else's work? You believe you should just delete something, without bothering to check for a source yourself, or tag it. That is something you have done in the past, to the Gantz article, and elsewhere. And if you don't have time to spend three seconds Googling, then you shouldn't have time to edit at all. I am not insulting you, but complaining about your horrible editing practices. Dream Focus (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else's work as in proving a work existed, and considering the IPs other edits, it didn't seem particularly plausible. And I realize you have an ax to grind but really, take it elsewhere or get over it. Your hideous amount of bad faith here and claims of "horrible editing practices" are blatantly ridiculous and nothing but unfounded claims. My edits to the Gantz article were largely upheld by the project, as have other clearing out of unsourced stuff that you personally might like, but that doesn't belong here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You see nothing wrong with simply deleting something without bothering to check it out for yourself. That is a horrible editing. And now you claim that I'm using "hideous amounts of bad faith" by criticizing what I believe most would agree are in fact horrible editing practices. And most of what you deleted in Gantz, just got put back in various side pages. And what has editor IP 76.66.198.171 ever done which would make you believe his claim wasn't plausible? So much so that you'd just delete it, without bothering to spend three seconds to Google and see for yourself whether the manual existed or not? Dream Focus (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not horrible editing. That's your personal view, and you're welcome to it, but it is not horrible editing at all. Unverified information that lacked even basic details beyond a claimed ISBN and an attempt to wikify an obviously unnotable book (if it existed) seemed spurious and the IP's only edit to the Gantz realm was to shove a Sci-Fi banner on the page. At most, you could say I was rushing (as, if you check my contribs, you'll see I was leaving at the time), but that was certainly no reason for your unfounded personal remarks, nor your then turning around, restoring, without apparently having 3 seconds yourself to add the reference (funny how that worked), then when I came back and added a valid reference and corrected it, you turned around and tried to mess it up for no other reason that an apparent ignorance in the ways of citations. Most of what was deleted got put on various side pages because of fans who refuse to accept reality and just keep moving it around, and the project concentrating on other series right now. When the project does return to Gantz, most of that stuff will be gone again for good. (and FYI, why do you keep saying to google when I could just go straight to Amazon.co.jp? Why waste steps?). Anyway, this is obviously a pointless conversation as you seem determined to just find reasons to complain about my editing, so enjoy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You call it "an obvious unnotable book", despite it being an official manual about the series the article was dedicated to. And yes, I thought Publisher meant the publishing company, but in fact, when using cite web, it lists where the information about the subject was published at. A simple mistake. Unlike you, I have no problems admitting my occasional mistakes. And what project are you referring to? The only reason you were able to erase so much of the Gantz article last time was because no one but me was around to protest, and when I asked for a third party opinion, the two people that stumbled over simply said it was too long, and did not answer my question about the content being valid at all. Now that there are other editors around participating in the Gantz article, I don't think I'd have trouble undoing any mass deleting you tried to pull. Dream Focus (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is an obviously unnotable book per wikipedia standards. Being an official manual for the series is irrelevant (see WP:BK for book notability guidelines). It is an extremely minor work within the entire franchise/series. And I admit my mistakes, when I actually make them (and do note, again, that I was the one who sourced the claim, not you). The project? The Anime and manga project which oversees it and supported the removal of the bad information, and yes, you would have trouble undoing it. The project supports article clean up and improvement, not glutting articles with inappropriate and excessive plot and in-universe information, as can easily be seen by actually participating in the project and seeing our many other clean up efforts. Maybe if you read up some the anime/manga guidelines, such as the MoS and writing about fiction, you might better understand why the information was removed, but somehow, I think you don't care about those at all, nor do you really seem to actually want Gantz to be a good article, just one that is good for you.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable as pertaining to the Gantz article. And it is notable on its own, since it was written by a notable and bestselling writer, although I don't know how high its own sales figures were. Lot of detailed information in there, which anyone who was interested in the series, and thus the reason they'd come to the wikipedia article about it, would be interesting in knowing about. Too bad they still haven't released an English version yet. And I care about making an article interesting for people who are actually care about the subject, not keeping it short for the occasional skim reader. Dream Focus (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how Wikipedia notability works. Notability is not inherited nor is it notable by being written by the author of Gantz. Anyway, obviously this conversation is done, but thank you for letting me know about your restoring that content elsewhere. Of course, you are already aware that it has now been AfDed as it, again, is not appropriate material for Wikipedia, as was explained to you in August. Try to leave the incivility out of the AfD discussion, though, and just let the discussion take place. If your view that this equipment list is appropriate and notable is correct, others will support it without your bringing this argument there. Thanks and have a nice night. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of Gantz equipment

I have nominated List of Gantz equipment, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gantz equipment. 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. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A minor misunderstanding worked out quickly

Consensus?

Two comments, DF. First of all, this may not yet be a technical violation of WP:3RR, but it's close, and it is a violation of the spirit thereof. You should not have reverted this.

Secondly, you need to get relaxed and become better acquainted with policies. For starters, you need to read WP:CONSENSUS forwards and backwards. To claim that you had "consensus" for reverting Collectonian's revert of you, smacks either of being ill-informed, or of acting in bad faith.

You do yourself no good by taking advantage of my innocent curiosity in this matter in this manner. (If you don't understand why I consider your actions to be "taking advantage" of me, I will be happy to explain at length. I think it's entirely believable that you genuinely don't understand.) I'm sorry about the frustration that you feel, but these actions are not helping you today and they won't help you in the future. Good luck, I'm blowing this town. Un school 05:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read up a bit. I posted asking her not to delete something I saw as valid, she claimed it was a personal attack, and then went on to nominate the Gantz equipment page be deleted. I discussed things there, sought information elsewhere, and then looked around at other articles up for deletion, posting my opinions. She then posted that I'm following her around attacking her, when in fact it seems to me to be the other way around, she posting after me. Anyway, an administrator has been asked to look into this, and I'm interested to hear their results. I saw no part of the canvasing rule that I violated, and asked for another opinion, as is common when two editors disagree with one another. I was not trying to take advantage of you, and don't know what you mean. Dream Focus (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that bothered me most was this edit summary. You claimed that "consensus" existed that your post was not canvassing. While yes, I agreed with you that it did not appear to be canvassing (and I still do agree on that, by the way), you had no business indicating in your edit summary reverting her that "consensus" existed. I was the only editor who replied to your inquiry. A single editor agreeing with you does not indicate consensus, especially after only an hour or so in the middle of the night (for some of us) has passed. Consensus takes time, and, more importantly, it takes a significant amount of input. I felt that you were taking advantage of me because you were using me to support you in a way far beyond what was justified. That's why I told you to read WP:CONSENSUS. Please learn the ropes, before you accidentally hang yourself with one. Un school 07:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one else had posted for hours before you. And I didn't think consensus required numbers. Two to one, is the same as six to one I thought. Anyway, sorry you felt that way. I don't think waiting days will result in any future post on that subject though. Perhaps I should've said, third party says it isn't consensus. That probably would've been the proper word to use. Since when there was an editing conflict before, between just me and her, I asked for a third party intervention. Dream Focus (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First encounter with Sephiroth

Re:Dream Focus

Uh, no. This is clearly wrong, as the publisher of the website is Amazon, not Shueisha, and it's a website, not a book that's the source you're citing. Your current edits there are disruptive. As for your AfDs, we don't care what is entertaining/fun/nice to look at for our readers in terms of what gets an article and what doesn't. Stuff that doesn't meet our notability guideline is either merged or deleted. If you want to write about whatever you want, then Wikia is the place. As for the Clow Cards AfD, there's three people for merge, one for delete, and a weak keep. The comment at the bottom is a textbook WP:USEFUL and ignored by the closing administrator. Even the weak keep notes that there's a lot of trivial content. Consensus to merge and redirect is thus adamantly clear. Ergo, attempting to dispute this is silly and you're running against the established consensus on the matter. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That one edit I acknowledged my mistake. Publisher means the site it comes from, not the publishing company. That wasn't what this was about. She is trying to make it look like this is all about that, when in fact its about a previous edit, where she erased the information entirely about the manual, claiming she didn't believe it existed. I then restored it, asking her to Google next time before erasing something, or tag it with a notation needed. She then deleted my comment on the talk page saying it was a personal attack, and coming here to post on my user page complaining. As for the Clow Cards, there is no way possible to merge that much information, or even a list of the core 19 cards with a single sentence description, without the main page being too long. But I've given up on that issue, discussing it with others, and listening to them. Now then, was it right for her to delete my comment on the Gantz talk page? Was that in any way possibly an attack against her? Dream Focus (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You added it without a source and she's justified to remove it per WP:V. That an anon added it without a source, and that she asked for a source here is entirely within her purview. In fact, your edit summary here was far more incivil. As for the removal of the comment on the talk page, it was appropriate. She noted that you should put the comment on her talk page, as it was directed solely at her and thus was a more appropriate location. As for the Clow Cards issue, all the material does not need to be merged; as the majority of it is extraneous plot summary, it fails WP:NOT#INFO and simply isn't appropriate for inclusion, especially because the majority of the cards are one-episode deals with no significant information past that. To cover them in such detail is giving them inappropriate undue weight.

And in any case, directly telling another editor to subvert an ungoing AfD discussion by splitting a list of characters out and encouraging them to edit war is not constructive. Further attempts to do so will be viewed as disruptive. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can not erase something like that, without checking first. That's just ridiculous. If you needed a reference for every single sentence, then 99% of all articles would be erased. Just tag it with a citation needed, or spend three seconds googling. See? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gantz&diff=264407249&oldid=264386867

As for this subvert nonsense, I said if you disagree with an edit, you can undo it. She seems to admitted her mistake after some discussion on her user page, and restored some of the character information she had erased. You don't just wipe out a large section if you don't like it, but instead state what you believe is wrong with it, and what should be changed. And the AFD thing has the majority of people saying keep, so it'll be kept. I'm not trying to subvert it. If she erased the character information for having too much detail, and thus being too long, then you can make a separate character page for it, as others do. Obviously you wouldn't bother if the article had a chance of being deleted. Dream Focus (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be part of the problem here. You are confusing "too detailed" with "too long" which is not the same thing at all. Too detailed means it has too much excessive and unnecessary plot detail that doesn't belong on Wikipedia period, not in the main article, not in sub articles. Again, I point you to WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, and WP:SUMMARY. Obviously that article is not "too long" in any way shape for form. Its barely above a stub and certainly not anywhere near the suggested size limit of an article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, originally I was thinking it was because of the length, not the content, when I made the originally suggestion. You still should've just tagged it, instead of wide spread deletion. Now that you are here, please go here, and tell me your honest opinion. Does this make any sense at all, or is someone out to get me? [1] Dream Focus (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When cleaning up issues in an article, it is cleaned. Discussion isn't always required unless someone actually disagrees with it. It is a stub article (presuming you mean RH), and the clean up is appropriate and something many project members do as part of our on-going and never ending effort to improve articles to Wikipedia standards. The writer disagreed, we discussed, and came to a suitable compromise (and no, it wasn't that "I admitted I was wrong", I just decided it was fine to compromise here if the info was cleaned up and to avoid the issue of a bad and unnecessary split). And yes, the edit makes sense to me. That is an Featured List (FL), so you can be sure it has been edited by experienced copyeditors who are well versed in appropriate grammar and tonal issues. FL means it is the best of the best among lists, and represents the highest quality of articles we have. I.E. its completely sourced with professionally written prosed and follows all relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Also, as Sephiroth BCR is one of the most prolific featured list editor and an FL director (right title?), he is knowledgeable enough to discern what is and is not appropriate wording in an FL level list. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because the level of prose you were using was frankly horrible. Just an example: "Reika convinces most of them they just stay safe and not get involved." Aside from not making any sense, it's very poor grammar. You're trying to fix an item of featured content in any case. To be honest, it was detracting from the quality of the list, which is supposed to be a representation of Wikipedia's best work hence why I told you to go to the talk page, where people familiar with the series could correct whatever you thought incorrect with the plot summary while still maintaining a high level of prose. And per Collectonian, I am quite the prolific FL writer and am the FLRC director, so I know what I'm talking about, thanks. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find that hilarious, since I was the one that corrected so much bad grammar on that page previously, it written by someone who didn't know English as their first language. And yes, it should read Reika convinces most of them they should just stay safe and not get involved. And the plot summary does have problems with it. I'm discussing that on that talk page now though. And the Wikipedia's finest work is a page with summaries for a series that has naked large breasted teenage girls, sex, and plenty of blood and gore everywhere? Plus one kid shot up his entire class for bullying him. LOL! Because this is what the wikipedia is about folks. Forget the educational content normal encyclopedia's brag about, and focus on the entertainment side. Surely something to brag about. ;) Dream Focus (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who is capable of writing a sentence as bad as the one described above doesn't have the right to criticize anyone's prose or think that it's funny. My six year-old cousin could write a more coherent sentence than that. Part of the charm of Wikipedia is that our best work can be on series like that in any case. We don't care what the subject is. It's our job to cover them in an encyclopedic manner. Take your "educational content" crap out the door, thanks. If you don't like the material, you're free to not edit. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, just misunderstanding, things taken out of context

Personal attacks

Your personal attacks against Collectonian are getting unacceptable. First, to clear the air, I could care less what inclusion philosophy you have. I certainly don't agree with it, and think it's ludicrous and illogical, but you're free to express it at AfDs to your heart's desire. I will never simply dismiss you as a contributor as a result of your inclusion philosophy. That said, tying your posts with clear personal attacks against Collectonian is unacceptable. Because she states that she is a deletionist is no reason to attempt to insert an ad hominem into your !vote that not only has nothing to do with the issues brought up at the AfD, but is simply a low blow at another editor that deeply misrepresents her inclusion philosophy. It's perfectly fine for you to disagree with her ideas, but the moment you go from there into an attack on her as a person, you're passed the line. Also, this serves no purpose other than to be disruptive. What on earth are you going to do with such information? Use it for more ad hominem attacks? Consider this a warning. Further personal attacks may result in blocks. Simply cease with the personal attacks on Collectonian and this will never become a problem in the future. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 15:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He asked her why she was nominating so many things for deletion, and I mentioned the reason why. She has stated she is a deletionist, that her thing. Dream Focus (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the wikiquette thing, I noted she was involved in a conflict with someone else from the manga discussion, so I went there, and pointed out a lot of people have problems with her behavior, she doing things that upset a lot of editors and draw them into conflict. Anyway, doesn't matter now. And I only voted Keep on manga articles that were published in the most influential magazine in the manga industry Jump comics, stating my reason why each time, it the same reason for all of those, and didn't vote on the rest of those nominated for deletion. I did not just go through and vote Keep on everything she was trying to delete, as some have suggested. And I didn't just start going there to taunt her, I having visited the AFD pages off and on for months now. Dream Focus (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make this is simple. Stop interacting with Collectonian. What on earth is your point in responding to her WQ alert? Not only do you not even respond to the substance of her comment, your immediate response is to attack her deletion philosophy, again, as you do in AfDs still. As I outlined above, her deletion philosophy makes absolutely no difference whatsoever in AfDs. Concentrate on the article and not the user. If you can't do this, then I might have to resort to a ban between both of you from interfering with one another, which I don't want to do, as I assume that you're mature enough to stop this behavior. Go write or expand an article. There must be things you're interested in writing, else you wouldn't be here. Practically stalking another user and complaining about their deletion philosophy can't be the reason. And do note that I'm trying to be cooperative here. You go a long way by respecting people's arguments (assuming they're not hopelessly inane) and addressing their substance, not the person. Should this happen again, I'm simply going to take a harder line on this, which again, I don't want to do. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded because I felt she falsely accusing someone of something. And I'm trying to work on the same manga articles she is in, almost always manga related. At the moment I'm trying to figure out why a vote for Merge on the AFD for Akane-chan_Overdrive, ends up with her refusing to allow any of the information to be merged in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mizuki_Kawashita#The_debate_was_closed_on_06_February_2009_with_a_consensus_to_merge My original comments you see there, were posted on someone user page, he deciding to copy them over to that article's talk page, and we got started again. I posted on the merge article to ask about the rules of the merging process, and was told to go to dispute resolution, so I'll end up in conflict her once again I'll suppose. Since I have your attention, can you look into the Merge issue, and tell me your opinion? Is she violating any rules? I enjoy manga, and can't be expected to ignore all manga discussion simple because of one editor. Dream Focus (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're responding because you're following her contributions, which is an unhealthy thing to do and is completely unnecessary. It's perfectly possible for you to distance yourself from her. As for the merge, it's completely appropriate. A "merge" result in an AfD does not mean merge everything. It means merge the information per its necessary due coverage. There's no need for a merge of the entire infobox and other content; a mere mention in the bibliography, and should the article be expanded to cover her writing history, a brief synopsis of the plot in the body of the article. As this hasn't materialized, nothing is necessary for a merge. This is a typical mistake by a new user, but your excessive forum shopping is disruptive. And in any case, I'm not telling you to avoid all manga. I'm telling you to go add content somewhere to a manga you enjoy. I'm sure you can find one that Collectonian doesn't edit, and if you're actually trying to improve the article, I'm sure there will be no conflict. If your edits are detrimental to the article and get reverted, it's not a sign that someone doesn't like you; it's a sign that your edits have flaws that you need to address. If you're doing nothing but simply reverting back and treating it personally, then you're not going to go far as a contributor. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint from someone who prods for deletions before Googling for proof

Sara Wakatsuki

I saw you removed the prod with claims that there's a list of things she's has done. Would you mind actually adding them to the article to help establish her notability? I mean, it doesn't do an article much good to claim the existence of notable credits and then just walk away. Thanks! Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 18:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You click on the link to Anime News Network for one, then Google to see the rest. It would've been faster for you to Google for the person, than to nominate it for a speedy delete. Wikipedia policy is to look for it yourself, before nominating it. I added an external link that counts as notable, so that prevents deletion. If you want anything added to the page, do it yourself, or leave it around long enough and someone else will get around to it. Dream Focus 18:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for a speedy delete, did I? That's funny, because it looks to me like I used a prod - a prod stating she has no IMDb or FMD page, which would take a Google search to determine. What's also funny is that my previous Google search turned up nothing but one credit (as the Anime News Network site you added verifies) - and on some sites, zero - which is why I nominated the article for deletion. But you contest the deletion saying she has multiple credits. Are you willing to state them? Obviously not, which makes me doubt she has anything else. One credit = fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Did you know that? Perhaps it is you who needs to be reminded of Wiki policy. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 19:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the first page of Google results when I search for her name, I see her album mentioned, as well as a television appearance. Checking the Japanese wikipedia for her name, I see she's done other things. Before nominating something for deletion, its best to Google their name between quotation marks, and look through the first few links. And remember, if they are only famous for things in another country, none of which has officially been released in English yet, you aren't likely to find them listed on IMDB. Dream Focus 20:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the reliability of the google sources. But if you claim they are reliable add them. I found a translation of her old stage name: Miya Zawaarisa. This might help find some info. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 21:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see her singing her song on YouTube, and I found the audition she did for the extremely popular magazine contest in Japan that she won, plus I found albums for sale with her name on them. Two are music, the other I think is just live action drama. Not sure. Anyway, I went ahead and added some things. Dream Focus 21:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube doesn't help verify the album exists. So I'll go search for something verifying the album exists. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 22:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I found a site that sells them on the first page of Google hits. Other things make her notable, this just additional information about her. Not sure where to look to find trustworthy sales figures for Japanese albums. Dream Focus 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh warning for a minor mistake, based on someone mislabeling their edit

February 2009

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Mayu Sakai. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Since you "found a source" that means you knew it was copyvio, so giving you the warning for adding it back anyway. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reason for deleting it wasn't because it was copyrighted, it was because you said it was unsourced. If its copyrighted, then yes, we should delete it, but not because of the reason stated. Dream Focus 19:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I listed one reason doesn't mean it was the only one. If you'd quit blindly reverting me just because its me, maybe you'd have realized it was blatantly obvious that is stolen from another site without having to specifically state so. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I didn't bother reading it. I just glanced at the first sentence, saw your reason for the chunk deletion was "Sources" and reverted it, since "sources" is not a reason to be deleting stuff. Dream Focus 19:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re your edits to User talk:Sephiroth BCR

I would point out that account holders are given pretty much free range, within the rules, of what they wish to host on the account talkpage. If you feel that there is still some good reason to continue a discussion that has been archived, I suggest that you request the editor that it is returned. Another method would be to continue to post, referencing the archived discussion. It is considered very poor manners to edit other peoples' talkpages, outside of discussion or removal of vandalism, and I think it would be appropriate for you to undo your edit and then continue as suggested above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...I just saw this. :|

Dream Focus, I agree with LessHeard vanU, and have reverted as such. Sephiroth BCR deliberately archived it last night as a discussion that wasn't going anywhere. I agree with his assessment. Although I said I missed the developments, I did review it for myself (in catch-up) prior to making the comment on his talk page. Should Sephiroth BCR like to recommence those discussions, or have it reappear on this page, he will unarchive them at his discretion. In the meantime, on the condition you don't alter the comments made there, you may duplicate the comments onto your page here if you wish. Alternatively, perhaps even preferrably, the method specified above by LessHeard vanU will work very well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a mistake, since it was still ongoing. But he did that on purpose? I'll copy it on over here then. Dream Focus 18:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.

User:Dream Focus & User:Collectonian

Comments duplicated from User talk:Sephiroth BCR until 05:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for you advice cause i see that you seem to have tried some mediation between these two editors. Again it has arrived at a wikiquette alerts with both editors throwing bad faith accusations back and forth. Neither seem that interested in the advice given or accepting that this behaviour is unproductive which is about the limit of what can be done at WQA. Can you suggest anything? take it to ANI, mediation? A topic ban? A ban on interaction? I suggested that they both draw a line under the past and assmue good faith in future but i'm not convinced it will be effective. Thanks in advance. --neon white talk 06:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there much to prove wikistalking by Dream Focus? i couldn't really find anything to it. Not in recent contributions anyway. Dream Focus claims to be watching certain pages which is fair enough. It's very difficult to prove motive without making assumptions (which is the point i was trying to make to Collectonian with regards to the bad faith allegations against Dream Focus) Whilst it seems that Dream Focus is a problem, i've seen plenty of evidence of Collectonian edit warring with Dream Focus and not really assuming good faith. Do you believe this is reasonable or unreasonable? One of the things that WQA is stated not to be for is to mediate long term disputes between two editors. As for ideas, i know the arbitration committee can set strict guidelines with regards to intereaction but it's required that mediation is attempted first. --neon white talk 19:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've handled a similar harassment claim with LessHeard vanU in the past, although this may be a different bucket of monkeys. I just see a big mess at the WQA so I've closed it in favour of an RfC/U. It was helpful when others got to see the dispute from the perspective of both sides last time, so this would be an ideal time to do so again. The evidence section is what interests me most, and participation by both of you in that RfC will be important (as mediator, and as outsider). From there, I can make a recommendation on whether the community can do something that will work, or whether this might as well be pushed straight up to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To neon white, there were several incidents of what I perceived to be stalking (see the thread above; I'm too tired to look for specific examples right now). Again, I think the root of the conflict is Dream Focus taking the "inclusionst vs. deletionist" conflict far too seriously and Collectonian overreacting to his zeal by edit warring. Part of the problem is that Collectonian tends to overreact to perceived stalking, some of which has occured here, so that has only served to inflame tensions. To be fair, she had to deal with another user who was stalking her (Abtract), and that had to be resolved by an arbitration case that restricted Abtract from interacting with her.

To Ncmvocalist, an RfC/U might be a decent solution. Get the two of them to vent all the perceived wrongs one has committed against the other and we can go from there. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just couldn't find any recent evidence that stalking was happening since the last time which was why i was concerned that Collectonian continuing the accusations of stalking (which i believe was the stated reason Dream Focus took it to WQA) and more were not appropriate. I'm unclear as to whether it is reasonable for her to not assume good faith considering Dream Focus's history. I'm just not happy about an editor's history being dragged up during a dispute in this way. I think there has to be a point where good faith has to be 're-assumed'. To be honest i have no idea why the "inclusionst vs. deletionist" thing has to be such an issue. There doesnt seem to be that much flexibility in policy for such extreme views. --neon white talk 05:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this on Ncmvocalist's talkpage, so I thought I might comment; The restriction that was drafted chiefly by Ncmvocalist between Collectonian and Abtract was a very comprehensive form of words which, if adhered to, should have prevented the wikihounding experienced by Collectonian (and also would have meant Collectonian agreeing to limits) - it is also flexible enough to be adopted by Dream Focus and Collectonian if the RfC concludes there should be an agreement that the editors should disengage. Abtract was only taken to ArbCom because of his gaming of the restriction, and was sanctioned largely because it was realised the restrictions were an appropriate vehicle for resolving the matter which he disregarded. I would recommend a review of the Abtract/Collectonian restrictions to see if a variant might serve the same intended purpose in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh...everything (and I mean everything) I was going to say in my reply has already just been said by LHvU. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced a ban on interaction will be that productive. They are going to have to interact with other editors and some will have equally opposing views. These too editors essentially need to learn to disagree in a civil manner. --neon white talk 05:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing to interact with other editors with equally opposing views; it's another thing to wikihound another contributor. Also, in some cases, a ban on interaction prevents the disruption that is caused when they insist on continuing to interact - a toxic environment is not desired by anyone. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Abtract/Collectonian restrictions might be a good idea. At least from my recollection, it was fairly easy to enforce and was rather obvious when one was gaming the restrictions. Also, Collectonian is familiar with the restrictions and probably won't have much of a problem with it. LHvU, could you link to the restrictions Ncmvocalist wrote up for those two? We might be able to simply skip the drama of an RfC/U if the two can agree to the restrictions to stay away from one another. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wording can be found here, part of an archive dedicated to this matter. In respect of Neon white's concern, it may be that the part of "not commenting" upon each other could be addressed strongly to Collectonian; as envisioned, the restriction was created to allow both parties to edit constructively without the distraction of the area of dispute and was not supposed to favour any one other than removing the specific matters of contention. If the parties are amenable, and good faith editors should be, then the restrictions can be voluntary with each editor requesting a reviewing admin plus third (or more) invited by the others. If this wording (or similar) is agreed then it can be posted at WP:AN. I trust this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think something needs to be done asap with this. I've seen further examples of the two editors getting deliberately (as i see it) involved with one another. For instance [[2]] & [[3]], Collectonian has no history with either of these article at all but appears straight after Dream Focus comments. Both of these editor's behaviour seems to be dragging other editors down and i think it's causing too many problems. I'm not in favour of throwing around blocks but i really believe these two need a cooling off and time to think. --neon white talk 20:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair in this case, Collectonian watches the AfDs at WP:ANIME/D fairly regularly, so this is really Collectonian being involved in her regular set of articles more than anything else. Also, I'm not really seeing those interactions as being worthy of blocks or even attention even. AfDs are always heated between people on different sides of the inclusion spectrum. I think you're overreacting in this case. I'm more worried about Dream Focus' comments outside of AfDs in merge discussions and whatnot. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough but the timing of her conributions and some of the wording concerns me. For instance the comments about Dream Focus when nominating Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Misa_Kobayashi. Were they really necessary? It seems a little antagonistic. To be honest i think both these editors are as bad as each other whe it comes to needling each other. I'm not in favour of blocks but these two editors do not seem prepared to either interact civily or avoid each other. Something has to be done. I'm tired of seeing them bicker and try to use every different process possible to justify it. --neon white talk 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was. I have ALWAYS noted when an article I am nominating was deprodded or a declined CSD, and I almost always note who removed it and the reason they gave. For a CSD, if it was "declined" by a non-admin, I also always note this. I'm not going to change my MO just because Dream Focus was the one who removed the tags, nor was I "antagonistic". I stated very simply that Dream Focus, a non-admin, removed both the prod and the CSD and quoted his edit summaries, same as I do for everyone else. Please point to some specific instances of incivility and personal attacks that I have personally done within the last 24 hours or so, and those by Dream Focus (including his newest, after he was blocked, on his talk page that basically mirrors his remarks below and in other areas without giving my name specifically). I think you will find that I have done little, if any, while he has continued full scale. Again, I have tried avoiding him, but when he keeps popping up all over the place, its rather hard to do and I will not just abandon my work in the anime/manga project because of him. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not going to change my MO" i think you need to reconsider this. If such things may be percieved as antogonistic there's is no harm in altering your editing practices to avoid it. Why is admin or non-admin relevant? It comes across like an accusation that he didnt have authority to do so. Just don't comment on each other at all! You must realise that this only inflame matters. If you both follow that then it doesnt matter where he pops up. --neon white talk 01:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least in that AfD, disclosing who removed a CSD and prod tag and the reasoning is perfectly fine. There's nothing antagonistic about it; in the nature of full disclosure, you're supposed to state that there was a CSD/prod tag if you put one on the article and it was removed prior to the AfD. I think you're overreacting here quite a bit. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. In normal cases it might be appropriate to disclose but considering this involved Dream Focus which she had prior problems with i think it's a good idea to stay away from any comments whatsoever that involve him. I wasn't saying the intention was necessarily was to antogonise but it certainly has the potential to and may come across accusatory, considering the extreme polar attitudes of both editors. Most nominators find it sufficient to simply note that a prod was removed without naming the editor or reasons. It's these types of things by both editors that are causing the problems and stopping both making any comments whatsoever concerning each other has to be considered. These editors have to learn to accommodate one other and that will mean being cautious about their actions around each other. --neon white talk 18:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is that it can come off as antagonistic...with the language being entirely neutral in the opening sentence of the nomination and zero evidence that it actually was meant to be antagonistic. Again, you're overreacting a lot here. There's certainly other cases to address, but you're blowing this individual case way out of proportion. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you said you didn't want to hear from either of us, but this is ridiculous. I can not be expected to ignore any anime/manga AfDs just because Dream Focus commented on them first. Nor did I appear "straight" after him. 4-5 HOURS difference on one, 30 minutes on the other, and HE has no history of editing either either. And no mention of the opposite happening at both Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer and its AfD, nor his immediately removing a CSD tag I put on an article[4] nor his popping into a discussion at the South Park episode page[5] only after I did (and continuing his "merge doesn't mean merge" arguments. Despite my questioning Neon white's neutrality at this point, I have tried very hard not to respond to Dream Focus' continuing personal attacks at the AfDs mentioned, in the TWO 3RR reports against Dream Focus at the moment, and here in which he continues perpetuating the false statements that I was the first and only editor to remove a rescue tag from an article, when I was neither the first NOR the last, yet Neon white actually told Dream Focus that he should have reported all THREE editors to AN/I instead of edit warring with us.[6] I don't really see how Neon white can claim to want to resolve the situation while appearing to be throwing even more fuel on the fire.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the tag was petty disruptive behaviour begining with other editors which you got unecessarily involved with in my opinion. Seeking admin intervention is always better than edit warring. I'm aware that you were not the first editor to remove it so why the need to get involved? I'd have thought avoiding such actions would be in your interest. No-one is suggesting you to not contibute to afds but to avoid unecessary antagonism. You are both hurling bad faith accusations at each other and that has to stop. Attacking a volunteer attempting to resolve a situation is also inapropriate --neon white talk 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you continue to focus solely on my actions. You might note that now a FOURTH editor has removed that tag. Also, please point out where I edit warred. I reverted him ONCE. All other reverts were done by other editors who also agreed with the tag removal. I don't see you saying anything to any of them claiming it was "disruptive". Nor was I "unnecessarily" involved as it has already been established that I am a very active member in the parent project of the article and had, in fact, edited it earlier in the day to remove copyvio material after examining it when it was AfDed. So I noticed the tag was removed and that it was unnecessarily readded. I agreed with the removal, which Dream Focus had already been reverted on twice and very specifically asked for "a consensus with other editors before removing" so I removed as well showing additional support for its removal. I have not unnecessarily antagonized anyone, and again I do not see you saying a single word about Dream Focus' remarks in other places that ARE clearly unnecessary antagonism for which he has been chastised, even by his fellow rescue project members. So, again, I have to ask why are you focusing purely on me. It feels as if you think I am the only one at fault here or the one most at fault, and I just can't agree with that idea at all. I also have not attacked anyone attempting to resolve the situation, I've made what I feel is a legitimate question of neutrality because of the seeming focus purely against me without any negative remarks about Dream Focus' actions despite his remarks all over the place seeming to be a far greater issue of "bad faith".-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on both editors actions in the WQA even though though the report was made about you. I warned both of you about the accusations being made. Whilst Dream Focus hasn't really responded to the requests and advice, you responded largely with denial and havent really shown any willingness to accept your part in the escalation which needed addressing. I am merely pointing out how some of your actions/methods may be reconsidered to avoid future problems. It's not an attack, it's helpful advice and is aimed at both editors. Both need to respond. If you respond and he continues his behaviour then he will deal with the consequences and not you.

I didnt actually say you edit warred. I said you got involved in an edit war that was going on with an editor that you have serious personal problems with for what reason? Why put yourself in that position? The removal was dispruptive in my opinion regardless of how many editors have done it. As was agreed by several editors in the edit war report, there is no logic to removing it other than to disrupt attempts to rescue an article. It's not up to a single editor to decide that an article is unrescuable. Deletion policy says we should do all we can to try and source an article. The afd will ultimately decide and attempts to rescue an article are nothing new nor unusual. It may be that editors have thoroughly searched for sources and found nothing and you may think that the rescue squad are wasting their time. Just let them and if the rescue squad do find 11th hour sources that save the article that should be welcomed. --neon white talk 19:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If its on the Rescue Squadron thing I visit it, and I have several categories on my watch list also. Her accusations toward me concerning the South Park thing, is rather ridiculous. Some people are trying to delete over a hundred articles at once, without going through an AFD, calling it a merge, when in fact not one bit of information will be added to the main article that is not already there. I protest this horrible and deceptive tactic, whenever I come across it. And once more, she mentions the CSD tag, which says if you disagree with it to remove it, which is what I did. She stated that you had to be an administrator to do that, but an administrator showed up and said that no, you didn't, anyone could do so. And where did I claim you were the first or only editor to remove the tag? I copied the history over there which shows who did what and when. Dream Focus 21:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- She has a ridiculous attack against me on her user page right now. [7] Particularly in this case, where he tags anything and everything

"I have never tagged anything with the Rescue squadron tag before. I don't recall ever using any tag previously for anything. She on the other hand has a terrible habit of going around to articles that were voted keep, and erasing them anyway, calling it a Merge. Look through her history, and you can see she has done that quite regularly. You have an editor who refuses to follow closing AFD consensus, and is obsessed with deleting every single article she can get away with. Is there a way to search for how many articles she has added a redirect to, after they were voted Keep? Dream Focus 21:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Dream Focus

Have you had the opportunity to review the restrictions that I linked to for Sephiroth BCR? Do you think that this might provide a basis for you and Collectonian to move forward in the editing of the encyclopedia, once the current matter is resolved? Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can not avoid each other, she determined to delete every article she can get away with, while I wish to save those worth saving(she calls herself a deletionist, I an inclusionist, that not an insult, but a fact). Conflict will occur. She can stop calling me a stalker in her edit summaries, and other uncivilized acts. I'm leaving any and all discussions I've had with anyone on my user page. Dream Focus 22:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem boils down to Dream Focus' belief that Collectonian is "determined to delete every article she can get away with". That misconception is perhaps the key problem here (aside from being grossly incorrect and having no basis whatsoever) and needs to be addressed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it also appears that Collectonian believes that Dream Focus is stalking her - and since harassment is in the eye of the beholder it is a valid perception - so I think that there can be a real benefit in having a restriction in them dealing directly with each other. While stillborn, there was an element in the old restriction of each party coming to one of the admins to mediate any immediate difficulty; thus reducing the potential of increasing friction every time the parties clash. If both editors can see how their own editing will be less effected, then I think that some sort of wording which distances both from each other might appear attractive. (I hope that folks can see that I am trying to get this agreed by the two editors, because it is much more likely to work when both believe they are deriving nett benefit from it...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And FYI to the other participants in this thread, Dream Focus has just been blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR violation, so we'll put this particular question on hold for a bit. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since my ban is up now, I'd like to comment on her statement above concerning the CSD tag. Or better yet, everyone just read what actually happened, and give your opinions please for that particular event.

Please look at the edit history of that article. Remember, read from the bottom, it coming first. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misa_Kobayashi&action=history

(cur) (prev) 02:29, 16 March 2009 Collectonian (talk | contribs) (825 bytes) (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misa Kobayashi. using TW) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 02:23, 16 March 2009 X! (talk | contribs) (503 bytes) (rv, csds can be removed by anyone, not just admins.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 02:18, 16 March 2009 Collectonian (talk | contribs) (518 bytes) (Undid revision 277548613 by Dream Focus (talk) rv; CSDs are determined by admins, not you) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 02:16, 16 March 2009 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (503 bytes) (It says "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice") (undo)
(cur) (prev) 02:14, 16 March 2009 Collectonian (talk | contribs) (518 bytes) (Undid revision 277546098 by Dream Focus (talk) rv; you are not an admin) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 02:02, 16 March 2009 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (503 bytes) (I object. An actor in three notable series gets an article, so why not voice actors the same way?) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 01:33, 16 March 2009 Collectonian (talk | contribs) (518 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). using TW) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 18:36, 15 March 2009 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (504 bytes) (has worked as a voice actor on several notable series) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 15:09, 15 March 2009 Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) (771 bytes) (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. (TW)) (undo)

Just read through that please. She appeared to believe only administrators could delete those tags, despite the fact it says if anyone disagrees with the speedy delete, they should remove it. Prods and speedy delete are just if no one would possibly object to the deletion of an article. Otherwise, you send it to AFD and discuss it, forming a consensus.

And if I delete her CSD tag right away, its because I had added that page to my watchlist after removing the prod placed by someone else. And I removed the speedy delete tag, for the same reason.

I would like others to read her comments there in the edit summaries, as well as on the AFD page as well, and comment. Did I do anything wrong? What about her adding the speedy delete tag back after I removed it? Isn't that rather uncalled for? I only mention the event at all, since it was brought up in the discussion above. I thought it just a common mistake, although a strange one, since the tag clearly states that anyone can remove it if they disagree, not just an administrator.

Notice that she appears to believe that everyone is out to get her. Do I appear in even 1% of the articles she is involved in? She edits a tremendous number of articles every day it seems. I'm certainly not stalking her, if we both show up in the anime/manga discussion, or something else we both signed up for on our watch list. Her constant behavior to ignore anything that the AFD voted keep, and then erase it when no one is looking, replacing it with a redirect, and calling it a "merge" despite nothing being merged, is a source of conflict. This is how this all got started again, she doing that to an article I had on my watchlist, and then in her edit comment calling me a "stalker" once again for it. I am certainly not stalking her. Dream Focus 01:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:AGF applies. You should assume that this is a misunderstanding of deletion policy. This wasnt what the block was for why is it being brought up? You need to provide some evidence to back up your claims. Do you have any diffs of these? --neon white talk 03:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mention it only because it was mentioned above. She complained about me deleting her tag for a speedy deletion after she posted it, so I was responding to that. I mention that I didn't respond previously, because I had a 24 hour block. Sorry if I didn't write that out in the most coherent way possible. The block issue I believe was discussed elsewhere, most agreeing they committed vandalism by removing the tags. As soon as I was blocked, there were at least two more attempts to remove them, reverted by others. But that doesn't specifically concern this case. I am not stalking her, and do not wish to be constantly accused of stalking. She has falsely accused me of other things as well, every chance she gets.

My problems are with her constant accusations, none of which make any sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Collectonian.27s_behavior

Every chance she gets, she accuses me of going after her because she nominated one of my articles for deletion, the Gantz Equipment page. You can see on my user page that that only happened, after I criticized her actions elsewhere, and then told her not to erase a message on a talk page, because she didn't like what it said. She then nominated my article for deletion. I had problems with her in the past. Does anyone who has seen the facts, believe her constant accusation that I'm simply out to get her because she deleted one article of mine? She makes false accusations to try to sway others to her side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiquette_alerts&diff=276813655&oldid=276812516 She accuses me of forum shopping, on a recent history of quatrains page, despite the fact I only posted on the wikiquette, and then was told where to post instead, and then posted a second time at that location. Does anyone consider that forum shopping? And that article was kept, as consensus, after enough attention was brought to the fact that a few were determined to delete it, and put just a redirect in its place.

Those who have looked through the issue, please answer my questions.

Do you believe I am stalking her, by appearing in the same AFD we both signed up notification for, and an occasional other discussion?
Do you believe I was forum shopping in the history of quatrains issue mentioned above?
Do you believe I am specifically out to her, in any way, for any reason?
Do you believe it is appropriate for her to keep making these accusations?

Dream Focus 05:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

Compressed for easier viewing, the mistake I made quoting something about the T-shirt, and the failure of proper communications to figure out exactly what people were complaining about right away. Note I apologized before the idiotic 12 hour ban(and yes, telling someone at 9pm, that they are banned until 9am the next morning, is very lame, since I'd be sleeping most of that time anyway)

click here to read through that long winded debate where some finally explained things properly

Hi Dream Focus, In the Tshirt AfD you and I agree on the outcome of the article, but I'd suggest you retract/refactor some of your most recent contributions. #1 they don't belong in the AfD as far as I can tell and #2 they certainly aren't Civil. There is certainly race and religious discrimination in the middle east. But putting it all on one side and (effectively) claiming an editor is racist isn't appropriate. If nothing else, it will likely result in a block if you keep it up. Just my 2 cents. To any admin, please don't consider this a civility warning, merely friendly advice. Hobit (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The debate was whether the t-shirt was an isolated incident or not. My argument was that it was common, and surely reflected the mindset of the soldiers who go off killing civilians. I should clarify my statement though. Going to edit that now. Dream Focus 11:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice my wording could've been interpret as directed at that one editor, instead of the Israelis themselves. I have corrected that. Dream Focus 11:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job Dream, that is the achilles heel of most editors, which is their eventual downfall--they never can admit they are wrong, and that they made mistakes. Ikip (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dream Focus! I left a comment at the AfD asking you to strike out your comments which accuse the entire nation of Israel (where military service is mandatory, therefore everyone is a soldier) of racism, war crimes, and being "screwed up". I find your comments deeply offensive, especially as a soldier (in reserves) who has never killed a Palestinian or made a Palestinian-related t-shirt. Even the most ardent pro-Palestinian editors on Wikipedia are not making the comments you are, and I would also appreciate it if you refrained from making such comments in the future. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo Dream focus,

I was just about to make a comment about your recent "the average soldier... murder thousands of innocent civilians"[8] comment but Ynhockey beat me to it. I support his comment here and request that you strike through the comment and avoid making such comments in the future. A quick look at past contributions show a few repetitions (Sample: [9]) so I am also making a notification that the Wikipedia ARBCOM have ruled on I-P issues with the following final decision. Please take the time to review these stated principles as ignoring decorum and the purpose of the project could lead to discretionary sanctions.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted over there again. I apologize for making such a comment. Obviously not all soldiers are that screwed up, but some racists ones among them surely are. Since I have people from that nation here, please answer a few questions for me.

After conquering the area, Israel was unable to give everyone the right to vote, since the locals outnumbered them. So it was then decided that those on the West Bank and Gaza Strip were still under control of your nation, but weren't allowed to vote. Is this correct? Over the years, Arabs living in Israel, have been driven out by various means, including force.
Years ago, I saw video footage of Russians who immigrated to Israel, laughing as they forced a Palestinian man at a checkpoint to strip naked, in front of everyone. This type of humiliation is constant, according to the news report. This is like how in Detroit in America's tragic racist past, the police would stop black Americans, refer to them as "boy" and do everything they could to harass and humiliate them. America also had a policy of Redlining, where the banks found a way to keep blacks from moving into certain areas, and did their best to drive them out. Is something like that going on in Israel now? I saw a news report in years past that Arabs couldn't get an apartment in some Jewish dominated areas. Would an Arab be able to get a bank loan, a government job, or rent an apartment as easily as a Jewish person would?
Have you seen video footage of an entire building getting shot up by helicopter, just to get one guy before? Do they censor the news any in Israel? Do you believe it is justified to endanger the lives of an entire building full of people, to get just one guy, instead of just sending in ground troops to arrest him? They wouldn't do this if it was a building filled with people they could relate to, therefor surely they must consider them all inferior, or all as potential enemies.

I look forward to your response. Dream Focus 16:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have another look at WP:ARBPIA#Purpose of Wikipedia - I'm not sure you understand the problem. PhilKnight (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Hi Dream Focus, I agree with Ynhockey, Jaakobou, and Pablo's comment on the AFD page - in future, please keep your comments focused, and avoid using Wikipedia as a debating forum, otherwise a block or ban is going to be applied. PhilKnight (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on the article page was not related to the t-shirt issue. The action represents the mindset of the people there. As for what I put on my personal talk page, it doesn't concern anyone but me. I have questions about the issue, and posted them here, since some from that nation are around to answer them for me. Dream Focus 22:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PhilKnight (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

The discussion was relevant to the subject. The only comment made which was generalized, I did post an apology for, stating not all the soldiers were screwed up, that wrong of me to say, but obviously racism is a serious problem, as the news article I linked to verified.

Decline reason:

Decline. Comments had nothing to do with the discussion whatsoever. Racist commentary like that has no place in any discussion anywhere on Wikipedia. You easily could have discussed the merits of the article without resorting to insensitive comments like those. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What the hell? The article is about racist and highly offensive t-shirts, and the discussion is whether the article represents a common mindset, or if it was just a rare event. Mentioning a BBC news article showing that 70% of the youth in Israel consider the Arabs to be intellectually inferior to them, which clearly shows that racism is a problem there, and thus the t-shirt incident not an isolate event, is in fact valid to the discussion. How is it insensitive or racist of me to point out what all the major newspapers and studies are saying? Did you read through all of that, or just do a brief glance at it? Dream Focus 00:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the incident was racist, but that doesn't give you license to shoot off insults of any kind, especially the kind you did. This isn't a forum for soapboxing. No one cares what your views are on the incident and they are totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is whether the article is appropriate for Wikipedia. Your comments were completely uncalled for and extremely offensive to Israelis, as several editors in that discussion noted. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a nation other than Israel, would you feel the same way? Do you consider Israel to be your spiritual homeland? Is that why you are so defensive? I've seen far worse from people elsewhere that didn't result in 12 hour blocks. Don't let your personal beliefs and emotions cloud your judgment. Dream Focus 01:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what nation it was. I'm not Jewish, Israeli, or have any connection whatsoever to Israel. That you believe that of all things is supposedly clouding my judgment is missing the point entirely. What honestly was your goal to give racist comments in a discussion like that? They have no place whatsoever there. The block is definitely deserved. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Please read my reasoning above, and then read everything in the talk page of that article. Was anything I said not relevant to the discussion about the article up for deletion? Do the t-shirts represent a common problem of racism in Israel as the BBC article I linked to and quote says, or did I do something wrong, and worthy of a ban?

Decline reason:

How are comments like "A type of sick humor common in their nation. And the average soldier over there has to be fairly screwed up" anything but irrefutable justification for this block? — Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Dream Focus 00:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was repeating what was posted in the comments, which at the time I believed. And after someone posted a response, I corrected myself with a reply that not all the soldiers were screwed up, but racism did surely exist. I should've apologized for the sick humor comment as well, the claim from one poster on the news article I linked to, not valid. Alright though. Thanks for giving me an answer. Wish others had done the same. Dream Focus 04:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(refactored out) My apologies Dream. <<-- this is how it is done. Ikip (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enemies? You mean someone who holds a grudge and acts on their personal feelings towards me, instead of doing what is right? Yeah, that is possible. Hopefully most people will rise above it. And I honestly want to know what it is EXACTLY that I did wrong. Dream Focus 01:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the T-shirts were racist, however you shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a soap box for your views, or as a debating forum. PhilKnight (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shovel black.jpg. Dream Focus, if you would like an award out of that shovel, let me know. Please take my advice: and blank this section. As a friend told me, choose your defeats carefully. What are you comments about this T-shirt worth to you? What do you risk giving up? You have saved so many articles, and you are good at it. Don't lose sight of this. We need you, wikipedia needs you, new editors desperatly need you. Ikip (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. Hobit (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ikip and Hobit. I have seen you make wonderfully sound and strong arguments in many discussions. You are overall an asset to our project. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologized above in WP:CIVIL before the 12 hour ban. I think the issue is over. Quoting something from the comments on a news page, accepting it without thinking, was wrong of me. I admitted that on the talk page. Anyway, I think we can move on now. Dream Focus 21:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo Dream Focus,
I'm figuring the main issue with your response to the requests -- to cut back on generic anti-Israeli commentary -- was that you continued to assert generic bad claims about Israelis. I would add that these assertions were innaccurate estimations and false application of statistical analysis resulting in great offense amoung your peer wiki-editors. In general, there is truth in the estimation that Israeli kids recieve (on average) better education than the average Arab kid. As for anything relating to racism in the middle-east, there certainly are some levels of it in each of the opposing societies but it seemed that you were taking a single event and trying to promote a provocative view point rather than focus on the shirt article. Using figurative "kill thousands" type of rhetorics certainly seemed to take the commentary over the top and resulted in your eventual sanctioning.
As for your queries...

Certainly, the Arabs who were interested in the removal of Israel from the map could not be handed voting rights. As for driving Arabs out of Israel during it's 60 years, I don't believe this a correct portrayal and certainly, the number of Arabs occupants of Israel has only increased over the years. As for the Jewish residents under Arab regimes, the results of the war were opposite and Jews were persecuted and their property seized as hard as they were in Yemen in 1679 only that this time they had a place to go to and the majority of them survived.
Sadly, I undergo the humiliation of having my bags checked at least twice each day ever since the evil attacks of 2002. Israel has nothing to apologize for the checkpoints and security measures considering the martyrdom seeking jihad "a.k.a. Mukawama" applied on civilian targets. As for young soldiers acting badly - the IDF does try to make these occurances as minimized as possible but you put a 19 year old for 4 weeks with people playing up the situation for the cameramen and you get "photogenic" shots. The comparison between Black/White race issues, btw, is incredibly naive since African Americans never joined 7 armies in an attempt to kill the US white community. If anything, a comparison with the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama of 1982 fits. Regardless, Israel does provide some affirmative action to help its Arab minority.
I have seen images of buildings shot down to get "just one guy" but considering the culture of the "mukawama jihad" - it is amazing when terrorists are captured alive. Israel currently holds about 9000 convicted militants, a good number of them terrorists who sent suicide bombers into discoteques and coffee shops. As for the lives of the surrounding people; that is an issue that the "mukawama" holds as their greatest weapon. Calling children via radio to "protect" (read: be an active human shield) a militant by sitting with them (and the weapons) in the same structure. It's amazing that the civilian to militant ratio is not higher than 3 to 1 considering this and this is a badge of honour for Israel on the one hand, but also an instrument in the hands of terrorists on the other. I'm not certain that defending the enemy population should indeed become more important than the active defense of your own people. Show me another point in time or another army that did better and it would be an intersting comparison to make.

I hope I answered your quesries. Please avoid the generic "inferiority/superiority/racism/massacres" allegations in the future. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer

Reverting vandalism can sometimes get you blocked

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

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

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

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

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

   * Reverting obvious vandalism ... adding or removing tags

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

3rr

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

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

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

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

I see he removed the tag again once I was banned. Glad you were there to revert his obvious vandalism. [10] Dream Focus 02:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Accidental reporting of 3RR

Accidentally reported 3RR not noticing it wasn't in the same 24 hours

About 3RR...

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

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

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

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

Edit warring noticeboard

Please note: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Result_22. Black Kite 22:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Canvassing misunderstanding

Worked it out fine without problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moved from: User Talk:Ikip:

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Minor mistake, don't need to bite so hard

everything is related

Spam

Please don't WP:SPAM your straw polls to unrelated but supposedly sympathetic to yourviewpoint projects, as you did here[11]. Fram (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 [12] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Minor things

Creative versus Entertainer

Regarding WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER

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

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

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

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

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

File permission problem with File:Red swamp and white river crawfish.jpg

Emailed owner and got permission to use it on Wikipedia, but it still got deleted, twice

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Red swamp and white river crawfish.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

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

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, I was actually only tagging the image as having a watermark that needed removing. However, now I look closer, it's clear there is an issue... I don't want to play an armchair psychologist, but... J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed them and they emailed me back, saying it was fine, as long I as credited them. I'll forward that email to the proper area though to confirm then. Is there any reason to doubt my word that they agreed to this? Do you believe there is the slightest possible chance I'd be making that up, and they'd object to this? Sheesh. Dream Focus 23:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually how this works, and you've just proven why- "it's alright as long as you credit them" is a long way from "public domain". I will check the email now. J Milburn (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find it. To which permissions queue was it sent? How long ago? J Milburn (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

permissions-en@wikimedia.org is where I forwarded to. It should be there now. Its title is [Fwd: Re: LSUAgCenter.com Contact Message] Dream Focus 00:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. "Well, if you would just give a photo credit to LSU AgCenter that is usually sufficient" is not enough, and is certainly not a declaration of the image being PD, especially when you asked "Is it alright to use the picture of the Red Swamp and White River crawfish on the Wikipedia's article for crayfish" rather than "is this in the public domain" or something akin. Unless we have positive evidence that the image is PD, it is not acceptable to leave it lying with that tag. J Milburn (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, find wherever all the tags are listed at, and pick one you think works best. Dream Focus 01:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have no evidence to say that this image is freely released. None of them work best. So, in answer to your question Is there any reason to doubt my word that they agreed to this?- yes, there is. It seems the doubt was well placed. J Milburn (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed them on that site and asked if using the image was alright. They said it was fine. So what's the problem here? They said it could be used in the crayfish articles, and so it is. What do you not understand here? They gave permission, so its fine. Dream Focus 14:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permission for Wikipedia to use an image is not enough for an image to be considered free. To be considered free, the image must be freely available to be used for any reasons, including commercially, and to be modified. J Milburn (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. I've seen tags that say you can give permission for something to be used on the Wikipedia, and not give it out for others to use. I'll go post wherever the image rules are at, and ask them though. Dream Focus 15:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whereever you post, there's a good chance it will be me answering. I'm an OTRS volunteer working primarily with the image submissions page, this is what I deal with all the time. Perhaps the tag you're thinking of is {{Non-free with permission}}? Read the text. That's a non-free tag. You may also be interested in speedy deletion criteria I3. J Milburn (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation is at [13]. Another editor agrees with me. The image is fine. Dream Focus 17:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My God, what? Yes, I saw the conversation (as I said, the page is on my watchlist) and no, another editor does not agree with you. Masem says, as I have been saying all along, that the image is non-free. You have decided that you will tag an image incorrectly (you obviously did not read the tag, as I told you to). That is a tag to be used in addition to a regular non-free use tag, and the usual non-free use rationale, and, I will tell you now, that image does not meet our non-free content criteria. As such, you're not going to get anywhere down the road you're heading. J Milburn (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - J Milburn is right - but look at my reply on the NFC talkpage for what you need to do in order to use the photo. Black Kite 17:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polite message from someone determined to destroy an article they didn't like, against consensus

Say it in a polite and friendly manner, to hide the vicious truth of your actions

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)[reply]

Ultima conflict.

Overwhelming majority of people were against the merge, but they did it anyway, and got away with it

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, [14] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

3rr warning

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

3RR

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

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

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)[reply]

WP:ANI

Hello, Dream Focus. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hater trying to destory a character list article

Been through this arguement a few dozen times now

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". We can't erase Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Feeling Malicious? Try not to bite

new editor falsely accuses others of nonsense at Malwarebytes article

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/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring at the bottom, just below yours. C2SP (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Age of Empires II: The Conquerors

Constantly revert of the same guy by different IP address and new accounts for adding spam

Hi, my latest contribution to Age of Empires II: The Conquerors was not meant for advertising purposes. The current information available on wikipedia on Age of Empires II: The Conquerors is simply outdated and thus is of no help to someone who plays the game. Is there a way of paraphrasing that contribution so that it wouldn't violate the terms? Thanks in advance for your reply. Kutcherovec (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Voobly site has been spammed into various articles, including that article, on numerous occasions. It was added to the Wikipedia blacklist already, so no one is suppose to be able to add it at all. Eventually they'll get around to looking over their backlog and fixing that problem. Dream Focus 00:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the previous attempts to add it were not done by me. My sole intention was to improve the article because nobody plays at Gamespy Arcade, so it is of no use to anyone. Saying Voobly.com is the most popular one is not advertising, it is a verifiable fact - there are over 1000 players every day. Furthermore, I do not really see any difference - if Gamespy Arcade is mentioned, is it not the same kind of advertising? Or is it because Voobly.com is unofficial? Anyway, if I leave out Voobly.com, could the changes be accepted? Sorry for bothering you so much with this and thanks for reply. Kutcherovec (talk) 07:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If its not the official site to play it online, and the company that made it doesn't tell people to use this other service, then it can't be listed. And I find it unlikely games that old are still being played, when newer games in the series, with superior AIs and graphics, are now available. Dream Focus 18:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it's a verifiable fact. This game is still popular and considered a classic among strategy games. Whether people find it unlikely or not, that is a different matter. Could I make the addition if I clearly say that Voobly.com is an unofficial server? Or if that is still a no, if I don't mention Voobly at all?Kutcherovec (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. This site seems different now that it was back when. They seem to be supported only by ads, not charging people anything. Do they always claim to have over a thousand people online no matter when you check up on them? I went to a notable website dedicated to the game and found people talking about it in many places. [15] Where they ask for a list of who uses it or Game Ranger, in another post, almost everyone that replies is squire, meaning they don't post much if anything at all, so I am curious about bots being used. What we had before posting at the Age of Kings, Age of Conquerors, and Microsoft Ants was obvious spam bots. In fact, the only people who keep adding this don't seem to edit Wikipedia much at all. Probably the same person. Post at the Video Game Wikiproject. I started a topic there to see what everyone thinks. We need more input on this. Please continue this discussion there [16] where more people will get involved in it. Dream Focus 19:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When to use contribution histories

No one was hounding anyone. Situation resolved

warning for wikihounding

Suggest you cease immediately following me on AfDs. consider this your first warning. LibStar (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you read things clearer there, and read my explanation. You need to stop rampaging around nominating things for deletion. Three editors have so far have tried to explain it to you at [17]. Dream Focus 05:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so you don't deny wikihounding? LibStar (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." And "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." I have an overriding reason, to try to reason with you, and bring as much attention to what you are doing, to get as many other people involved as possible. It isn't to agitate you, so it isn't a violation of the policy. Dream Focus 05:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

given our history this is definitely wikihounding. if I am outvoted in afd, let it be so. but I am an experienced editor and do not appreciate this harassment. stop and let others say what you feel is clearly keep consensus. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't stress it, LibStar. You know as well as I do that DreamFocus visits a good proportion of all AfDs listed and even if DreamFocus is specifically following you to AfDs that won't result in a pattern of behaviour different from the norm. DreamFocus's fairly unique opinions are a valuable dissenting opinion in most AfDs and the closing admins aren't going to be unduly swayed by DreamFocus' arguments if they aren't solid and based in policy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus has previously incorrectly accused me of "having a fit and getting angry" and appearing at an AfD that he was in. today's "following" is retaliatory action that constitutes WP:HARASS. If we only had encountered each other today that would not be harassment. LibStar (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have made immature comments about me regularly. Check the bilaterial article discussion archives on my talk page. That isn't what this is about. Please don't mass nominate things like you normally do, instead of waiting for more input from the community to define things properly. Dream Focus 05:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit [18] for discussion on rewording the WP:ENT to avoid confusion. Also, if its television related, the article should be added to the list of things nominated for deletion in the Wikiproject for television. Dream Focus 05:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's still stalking in my book, given your previous incorrect accusations of stalking against me. you simply decided to follow me 20 minutes after I posted a comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dzhambulat Khatokhov (2nd nomination) which has nothing to do with WP:ENT, and it wasn't even an article I nominated. LibStar (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I wouldn't know that until I had clicked on it. And once there I'd read over it and say, hey, this guy has plenty of media coverage, so I might as well post Keep while I'm here. Sheesh. After all the AFD debates we've both been in, you always mass nominating things in groups, so I'm going to be seeing if that pattern is happening all over again and try to stop it. Its a shame we couldn't establish any bilaterial guidelines to prevent that never ending conflict. Hopefully more people will be involved in entertainment though. Dream Focus 05:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you claimed earlier today you found an article I nominated because it was on rescue squadron... I assumed good faith, then you pop up on one that wasn't even on ARS. If your rather reason is to see my nominations regarding WP:ENT this does not fit in with your reasoning, clearly you are wiki~~stalking~~hounding. so you don't mind me following your AfDs now? LibStar (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first one was from the Rescue Squadron. Before it and after it I went and did all of the new entries that have appeared since last time I made my rounds. My contribution history will show that. I then checked to see if you were going have a pattern where you mass deleted things based on your misinterpretation of WP:ENT. Two places I noticed I commented on. I'm waiting for others to chime in their opinions so we can form consensus on things. Dream Focus 06:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, look, LibStar, (1) We don't use the word "stalking" because it many real-world jurisdictions it's an actual criminal offence, and I hope (especially after consulting WP:LEGAL) that you're not remotely suggesting that that's what's going on here. (2) Wikihounding is not merely following a specific editor around because you disagree with them, it's doing it with the purpose of intimidating, annoying, or distressing the other editor. DreamFocus has often been forthright in his dislike for deletionists but nothing he(?)'s done has ever suggested that he'd engage in that kind of behaviour. (3) Where an editor has a history of making a particular argument in deletion debates (as you often do with non-profit organisations, for example), it is not Wikihounding to seek out those particular discussions with the aim of politely presenting an opposing viewpoint. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dustformwords I will happily retract stalking, although you could give the same advice to Dream Focus [19], and to make sure this comment is not out of context, this was my response. LibStar (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which has nothing to do with this in any possible way. Stop trying to change the subject. Dream Focus 06:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is your previous behavior to me and consistent with my case of wikihounding. more relevant than ever. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Replying to a couple of comments back) I am sure Dreamfocus has read the same text. Probably the wisest thing to do is for everyone involved (including, now, me) to be just that extra bit more polite to each other than is strictly necessary for the next 24 hours, and maybe take a Wikibreak and watch some good TV or something before entering the battle again. Articles get wrongly kept or deleted every day; nothing on Wikipedia is irreversible and the world isn't going to fall down without us. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a merge, its a delete

consensus on the proper talk page was overwhelming against his actions

Enterprise episodes

Now that you've unmerged the season 1 episodes, do you actually intend trying to improve them? Just curious, because nobody who objected to the merge has done so since the merge was suggested. WikiuserNI (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if its not perfect the way it is, its still better than nothing at all, a much reduced almost nothing mention in a list somewhere. You don't go around eliminating articles simply because you don't like the quality level of the writing in them. Some people will want to read them and go there, as I did when I wanted information about a few episodes. Dream Focus 17:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, no. All the episode articles provide is a plot summary and credits. The season page (I hope you did look at it) showed almost all of that. All it needs is a light expansion of the plots for each episode.

What the merge does is make it easier to navigate and have a season perspective, leaving out little to no information of note. WikiuserNI (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can have a list article for easy navigation and season perspective, and then link to larger articles for people who want to read that information. Those who don't want to read longer articles, who don't consider the information worthy of note, won't click the link, won't see it at all, and thus won't be bothered by it. The only people likely to find their way there, are the ones who want to read the information. Dream Focus 20:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How much detail do you actually need in a plot summary. Remember that the summary is just that, a summary. We're advised against plot only descriptions of fictional works, right now that's all the Enterprise episodes are. It's notable that the notability tags still stand on each... WikiuserNI (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That can be discussed on the proper Wikiproject page, or the article talk pages themselves. Continue the conversation there if you want, more people likely to notice and get involved. Dream Focus 20:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the conversation was ongoing there for a couple of months, not much was done in favour of keeping the articles. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone notices straight away, everyone having other concerns. Perhaps contacting whoever was the largest contributor to the articles would've done well to bring in more input. And many are in favor of keeping the article, they having no reason to change anything just to make you happy. If you want them destroyed, send them all to AFD and get more input from people. Some might bother sorting through Google news results and various review sites. Dream Focus 21:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles really were that important, who wouldn't have noticed in the many months the articles were tagged and various discussions were ongoing? And I'd appreciate a little more good faith, you're starting to make this awfully personal; "just to make you happy", "If you want them destroyed"...

And another FYI, yes, I heard of this thing called Google. It unfortunately, hasn't heard much of note about the Star Trek Enterprise episodes. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are important to those who worked on them and those that read them. And no one notices everything they'd like to, since any active editors have their watchlist filled with so many things, its hard for anything to stand out. When I mentioned Google news, I was thinking of how the Rescue Squadron often finds things where others have not. I searched earlier and found ample results for episodes, but sorting through them was a real chore. I found a news site reviewing the DVD of season one, mentions several episodes by name, offering them brief praise, all in one sentence though. Probably more out there, somewhere. I don't think treknews would count as a reliable source, but not certain, didn't bother to check. Anyway, what do you gain by deleting these articles? Are they harming anyone at all? Dream Focus 21:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important to those who worked on them? Who would that be exactly? Replicating the plot doesn't take much.

And again, why are you being so bitey? Nobody has nominated the articles for deletion, a merge is something entirely different. A season page will more than adequately hold what these standalone articles have since their creation.

TV episode articles shouldn't be simply about plot, that the gist of it all. WikiuserNI (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing it with a redirect, is the same as deleting it. And as I said on the proper talk page, I found some of the articles you tried to eliminate won Emmy awards. Continue the discussion over there [20]. Dream Focus 11:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Replacing it with a redirect, is the same as deleting it", patently untrue. An AfD is an AfD and a merge is a merge. As you have demonstrated yourself, a merge can be undone.

Also, I've seen some of those Enteprise awards, they cover such things as hairdressing for a tv series, which is a strange form of notability. WikiuserNI (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense that led to the second time my user page was put up for deletion(ended in keep, of course)

Personal attacks on your user page

Please remove the disparaging comments you've made about me on your user page. In particular, that I am "spamming delete on AfD's tagged for rescue", and that I am "lazy" [21]. These comments clearly fall afoul of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I would also recommend you delete any other similar negative comments about other editors, of which there are many. If you disagree, I am happy to take the matter to WP:ANI and/or take the entire page to WP:MFD. Thanks for your cooperation. User:Snottywong 01:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Everything I said was true. Your nomination claimed you searched for results, but everyone else that took three seconds to click the Google news link found results straight away without problems. How many articles have you nominated for deletion, that ended in keep? At that time, quite a number of them. And I didn't mention you by name, just linked to there as an example of what I see happening far too often. Also, if you check the link at the top of my user page, you can see the discussion when someone tried to have it deleted before. Everything I say is Wikipedia related. Dream Focus 02:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I never claimed to be perfect. In this instance, I searched google news but I accidentally forgot to use the archive search, so nothing came up. Honest mistake. I even withdrew the nomination after realizing my mistake. And while you didn't specifically mention me by name, it's quite clear who you're talking about. You mention the "nominator", and then you provide a link to the AfD which shows me as the nominator. I'll give you some time to think about it, but I will escalate this if you choose not to self-revert. User:Snottywong 02:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mention its a typical day for the Rescue squadron, as I've seen lots of articles nominated by people who didn't do a proper Google news search first. That was just the most recent example. Most are done by newer editors. And threatening to escalate it if you don't get your way, is rather hostile. Trying to bully someone to get what you want? I've done nothing wrong. You just followed me here after I posted at [22], where you nominated something on the user page of someone else you commonly argue with in AFDs. You made a mistake there, but won't withdraw it, and seem determined to make additional mistakes. Dream Focus 02:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not threatening you, I'm actually trying to be respectful and polite. Instead of just nominating your user page for deletion, I'm asking you to fix it. If you're agreeable enough to fix it, then the discussion is over. Otherwise, I'm notifying you of my intentions. User:Snottywong 02:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you deny the fact that you go through all the articles tagged for Rescue, just looking for an excuse to post delete? Or that many times you copy and paste the exact same comment on all of them? Or that at other times you have claimed there are no references for something, despite the fact that many were quite easily found with a simple click at the search features at the top of the AFD? Dream Focus 02:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually, I deny all of those things. I do go through all of the articles tagged for rescue, mostly to ensure that the deletion discussion has been notified that it's been tagged for rescue. I vote delete some of them, I vote keep some of them, and I also abstain from voting on ones on which I don't have a strong opinion. A careful look through my contributions would corroborate that, and would also corroborate that I don't copy and past the same exact comment on AfD's (except in the rare case that the AfD's themselves are nearly identical, which was the case with the recent spat of Transformers articles which were all nominated simultaneously and all had the exact same problem). I also have never voted to delete something on the basis of it being non-notable without doing at least a cursory search for reliable sources. I'm sure, however, you'll find plenty of instances where I've voted to delete something that gets some significant number of google hits. However, for anyone who cares about the pillars of Wikipedia and isn't robotically compelled to keep every last piece of garbage that someone created, google hits and proof of existence are not guarantees of notability. Also, please note that your accusations above are clear assumptions of bad faith. User:Snottywong 02:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. You do seem to put a negative twist on everything. You assume bad faith by assuming I was going after you specifically, when I was clearly not. And calling the work of others "garbage" simply because you don't like it, is rather rude. Dream Focus 02:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must be hallucinating then. Your comments refer to a specific editor who nominated an article for deletion. You link to an AfD on which I was the nominator. How are your comments not directed specifically at me? Anyway, it's clear you're not going to be reasonable, so I'm going to withdraw from this discussion and continue it elsewhere. User:Snottywong

When you copy and paste the same bit in almost every AFD, saying "Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions)." isn't that being rather hostile? Its not a polite neutral message, but instead seems to be some bitterness about it. Dream Focus 02:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a copy and paste, it's a template, and I only add the optional bit (i.e. "with no explanation...") on AfD's where it is absolutely unclear why the article needs rescue, and the person who tagged it offered no explanation despite the clear ARS instructions. And, I never add the template on any AfD where the rescue-tagger mentions that they've tagged the article for rescue. User:Snottywong 14:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Dream Focus

User:Dream Focus, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dream Focus (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Dream Focus during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. User:Snottywong 02:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could've probably talked this out, if you had time to relax and stop being so emotional and unreasonable. Oh no! I just said someone was unreasonable! That must be me assuming bad faith and making personal attacks, by stating my opinion, explaining how I see their behavior. No editor has ever dared to imply another editor was being unreasonable, throughout the entire history of Wikipedia! We must find this heathen and burn him at the stake at once for his heresy! Dream Focus 03:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I'm sure of is that there is absolutely no way that you are capable of "talking something out" with me. Even if the MfD closes as keep, I'm still not going to stand for the personal attacks you've made against me on your user page, and I will take the issue to wherever it needs to be taken until they are removed. I hope you will find a way to delete that section so that we don't have to waste time going through all of that trouble. Because, frankly, I can't stand dealing with you and I'd rather be doing something productive. User:Snottywong 14:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep whining until you get what you want. Makes you look far worse than my criticism. FeydHuxtable made the case clearly at [23], so I removed the link. I have complained about this sort of my thing on my user page back two years ago in one section I noticed there, and plenty of other places as well. But if a link to an example singles someone out, then I can remove that link. Dream Focus 17:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo X once again

Too much dream, far too little focus

There is something hugely ironic about your picking on Jack Merridew while accusing him of picking on A Nobody.

Amusing though that exchange was, your accusations here are neither funny, true nor wise. Your comment "He has a long history of harassing A Nobody, who he drove from Wikipedia" is demonstrably untrue and enormously in bad faith.

You participated in this RFCU; it wasn't that long ago but to refresh your memory–Jack Merridew did not take part in the RFCU, save to endorse some views toward the end of the process. A Nobody has not edited since that RFC except with sockpuppet accounts. Which leads to this community ban discussion, in which you also participated (do you remember any of this?)

If you want to seek sanctions (and be taken seriously) it would be best to present facts, rather than presenting your opinions as though they were facts. pablo 10:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is what happened. It is why A Nobody left. Were you active during that time? It was going on long before the community ban on A Nobody. That ban I believe was because he refused to participate, since it was just the same usual people there to harass him. He was accused of using some socks puppets, not for vote stacking or harassment of any kind, but just to perform some edits without certain people noticing them and going after him. Allow him to edit Wikipedia privately. Dream Focus 10:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's not currently 'allowed' to edit Wikipedia at all; that's what a ban means. Using sockpuppets to evade a ban is similarly a no-no. The process for appealing a ban is well-established should he desire to return. The ban was not for any 'refusal to participate'. Read it. pablo 10:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't link to the right one. That RFC ended with nothing at all. Later on they had a discussion about him, and he refused to comment, and after awhile they banned him. I believe he was using sock puppets BEFORE that ban, he doing so just to avoid having to speak to those who had determined he had to talk to them whenever he got back from his break, concerning unrelated things. Dream Focus 10:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the right one: this community ban discussion (it's just a little way up the page, there, that way↑). I bow to your superior knowledge of teh extent of A Nobody's sockpuppeting activity; it's certainly been going on for years and no doubt continues as we speak.
pablo 11:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no, he just avoids Wikipedia and focuses on the wikia, wiki list and whatnot. If he was skilled at sock puppetry would he have been caught? And there was only minor bits, he found out right away, by his writing style. And do you see anyone like him around AFD discussions or anywhere? He isn't around anymore. How did you did find your way here so quickly? Just curious how you'd notice. Dream Focus 11:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No idea how skilled, but he's certainly had years of practice, so must have got the hang of it by now.
Spitfire's talk page is on my watchlist. pablo 11:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Years of practice? I thought it was just a few AFDs he posted in, during a short period of time, instead of using his main account. Dream Focus 12:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

etc. pablo 12:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first link shows them accusing of many things, including being Ikip! Funny. They dismissed all but a few IP addresses he had used at times, not actual user names Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_A_Nobody No problems there. What he did with his older account, which he vanished from do to stalking problems and threats, I'm not sure of. He apparently used different names to avoid that problem. Were any ever used or accused of doing anything with these other than helping him avoid future stalkers? Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Dream Focus 12:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The three similar IP addresses he used as socks, were to comment on a talk page of an article, and to vote only once in an article he had created which was up for deletion, and to discuss it. I looked at their contributions. Unlike some, he didn't go around using socks to vote stack or harass people. No major act of deception here, he just wanting to state his opinion in the deletion discussion for an article he had created. Dream Focus 12:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The Ikip thing was funny. As for the rest, you can read it yourself. Note though that the right to vanish is exactly that; it is not a right to continue editing under a different name, nor is it a license to freely create sockpuppet accounts. Vanished users are expected to go and not return, ever. This applies whatever the reason for requesting to vanish; there is no exemption for alleged stalking, nor is there exemption because you want to comment on an article you created yourself. pablo 12:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right to vanish is different than being blocked. It simply means you can start over again, and not have people from the past harassing you again. What happened with his old account isn't relevant to his more recent one of A Nobody, which had a long and notable career. Dream Focus 13:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read more carefully. Wikipedia:Right to vanish specifically does not mean that. What happened to his old account is relevant because you questioned my statement about his years of practice with sockpuppetry. His 'long and notable' career as A Nobody is well documented in the links in my earlier posts. pablo 13:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not right to vanish, but the right to uh... hmm... there was something about the right to start over, and eliminate the old account, to get away from stalkers. Whatever. Dream Focus 05:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement over what sources say

3RR violation

You have broken 3RR on Diaspora. Please revert yourself. You also have to understand that you are the one who came in during the AfD to change the language. Per WP:BRD you should leave it as it is an discuss. Either way, 3RR is a bright line. Please revert yourself. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I have done that three times within 24 hours, so no rule was violated. I will pay more attention. And you need to discuss this on the talk page, instead of trying to re-add something that is NOT supported in the sources mentioned. Dream Focus 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have. 1, 2, 3, 4. Thats 4 reverts in 15 hours. Please revert yourself.Griswaldo (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my mistake. Someone else already edited though, so whatever. As long false information isn't inserted in it, no problems. You should still use the talk page. Dream Focus 16:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the use if you're edit warring against BRD? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't used the talk page once, but you keep telling other people to do so. And WP:BRD is an essay, not having enough support to become a guideline and certainly not policy. You can not add in information which is not supported in any reliable source, unless there is consensus to have it. Otherwise, its gone. WP:RS is a guideline. I'm sure this is listed somewhere else to. Dream Focus 17:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to grasp the reason I point to BRD. You are the one who deleted information that had been in the entry for over a week. You can't do that without consensus. That's the point of BRD. It identifies the bold change and puts the onus on the changer, which you seem to want to do as well but you're twisting events to make it seem like you're not the one who made the change. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over a week! Wow, what a long period of time. Seriously, things change constantly. Someone added in false information, I removed it. That's more important than anything in a personal essay someone wrote. You don't need to discuss every single change you make. If people disagree, then those who actual disagree with the content being changed, go and discuss it on the talk page and work it out. That is what I did, and we came to an agreement over what the sources actually said. The situation was resolved. Then you went and added it back in again, without discussion on the talk page. Did you have a problem with the actual content, or were you just upset someone had undid an editor you like? Dream Focus 17:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody added in "false" information. But on that subject may wish to see WP:TRUTH. Also ... Ha! Editor I "like"? Are you trolling for a response here? I'm unsure where you even get that idea. His version happens to be accurate. A diaspora does indeed result in an ex-patriot community. In fact, usually, it is the greater ex-patriot community that is referred to as the diaspora in the first place. The source in question does not use that exact phrase, but it absolutely refers to an ex-patiot community. Every ex-patriot is not a member of a diaspora. Someone absolutely must engage in a wider expatriate community and its culture to be part of a diaspora. That's a very basic point. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources that say that all diasporas result in ex-patriot communities? If not, don't put that in there. All references so far have shown that's not the case. Dream Focus 17:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean other than the source in question? Sure. here, for instance. To be part of a diaspora means to be part of a community affiliated with a homeland, while being apart from it. Again, one is not part of a diaspora simple because one is an ex-patriot.Griswaldo (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page 16 of that book reads: Diaspora mixes, and overlaps with, meanings of words like 'expartiate', 'migrancy' and 'exile' to form 'an unruly crowd of descriptive/interpretative terms' that 'jostle and converse' in the modern lexicon of migration studies (Cliffort 1994a: 303). It goes on on that same page to discuss additional things the word can mean. Are the writers of this book notable? Anyone can get something published by a university press, it not difficult at all. And the current source in the article says it "may" contain various things listed, but it does not have to. Dream Focus 18:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the terminology used in the humanities and social sciences fits that description in terms of some amount of ambiguity, overlap and often contestation. I don't see how anything you quoted supports any of your points however. Do they say that it refers to something other than expatriate communities of a certain kind? If so what? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WQA

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

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)[reply]

Your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - Will you please get it into your head that I didn't delete anything? The merge was performed by the WikiProject, the history is still there at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur so that it can be restored if the article is moved back, and the place to discuss it is at the RFC. Black Kite 00:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging articles

Re [25] if we can't find enough 3rd party coverage then it will end up merged/redirected. The eventual plan was to merge these into a Glossary of Internet Relay Chat clients but updating Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients and keeping them as redirects in the interim means we can always backtrack through the breadcrumb link and pull the information from the redirected article to merge into the Glossary article. All of these redirected articles are meticulously cataloged and tracked. See Category:Needed-Class IRC articles as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC/To Do List, Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC/Index, and Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC/Redirects.
So please, stop assuming and implying [26] [27] that I'm some sort of "Evil Deletionist" hellbent on deleting articles.
--Tothwolf (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Rebecca Chambers

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

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

Continue discussion on article talk page [28] Dream Focus 21:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clear heels

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

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

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

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

AfD of Masato Funaki

Link here: [29]

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

Mato (illustrator)

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

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

Shingo Kobayashi

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

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

Issues of Voobly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are obviously one of the same people that did this before. You have a new account, with few posts, [30] and sound like some of the others have. And you just slipped in mention of it. Other editors, some of them banned for spamming, have done the same, before then coming back and adding a link. Voobly running Microsoft Ants without Microsoft's permission is illegal. The rest, I don't know about. You have no reason to mention them or any other things though, unless its the official site, or has been mentioned by the parent company is a place to play games at. Dream Focus 12:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Formal mediation has been requested

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

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

Request for mediation rejected

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

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

Talkback

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

I thought the information there was enough, but someone tried to delete it again anyway.

Famed writer gave permission but they kept going at it until they took it down anyway

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the evidence presented on the talk page is already overwhelmingly enough, but I went ahead and talked to the guy that confirms things, he back on Wikipedia now after a vacation. [31]. Dream Focus 16:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-free files in your user space

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

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

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

NPA

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

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

Sergeant Hatred DRV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Brooke Greenberg

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

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

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)[reply]

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.

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

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

Conflicts related to child(she was 13) rapist(could not give consent under the circumstances) Roman Polanski and the defense by his fanboys

Click to open

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Moved your discussion from AN to ANI

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

Posted to WP:BLPN

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

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

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

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

Warning for disruptive editing

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

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

ANI regarding the matter

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

soapboxing

Discussion here

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

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

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

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

your unexplained removal of notability, BLP unsourced, and advert tags is disruptive!

my removal of the rescue tag was a mistake due to the confusion created by your unexplained removal of the existing tags! Furthermore, your adding of Mohammad Ala's user page on Iranian.com as a 'source' is against WP:RS. Anyone can create an account on Iranian.com and write blogs, that doesn't make them notable! I have an account on Iranian.com and have written several blogs and articles on the site, that doesn't mean I should have a Wikipedia article about myself! Having a blogger account and writing blogs does not make you notable! -- Marmoulak (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just blogs but regular articles as well. Those count. And what I removed was nonsense. [34] It is not an advert, since they aren't selling anything. It has references to verify some of the information. The Wikify tag makes no sense either. Someone put a citation needed tag after the guy's name and the word "is". Mohammad Ala' is^{[citation needed]} Does that make any sense at all? Dream Focus 04:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page you are referencing is his user page, do you understand that? he can put anything he wants in there! I have a user page on Iranian.com and can claim to be the most important person in the world, that doesn't make it so!!! nonesense is NOT reading the rules before calling other people's edits "nonsense"! The advert tag is not just about "things you can sell", anything that "only promotes an entity, person or product and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic" qualifies to have that tag; Please read the rules before making such claims! And yes, adding "citation needed" after "is" does make sense, since he is not currently listed as a prof at CSULA, he was at one time teaching at that college but there is no evidence that he is part of it now. -- Marmoulak (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't promoting anything, so it isn't spam. And having the first sentence say: Mohammad Ala is[citation needed] a professor[citation needed], is in fact ridiculous. You put the citation needed after the professor part if you actually doubted he was a professor, I finding sources and adding them to prove he was of course an award winning one from the university mentioned, but you don't put it before any claim is made, such as after "is". Dream Focus 13:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is 'ridiculous' and utter nonsense is that you are using a user page as a reference on Wikipedia!!!! If you actually know how to read, try reading Wikipedia's rules regarding acceptable reliable sources (WP:RS), as it indicates that: Anyone can create a website, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether personal websites, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated (like Iranian.com, for example!). The entry is promoting Mohammad Ala (a person) and is written like an advertisement for him! so, all tags were appropriate, unlike your explained removal of those tags! -- Marmoulak (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page for that article and the AFD discussion for the rest of this. Dream Focus 22:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo hoax in popular culture

Hi, I don't appreciate you reverting my edit to the Hoax page. I know your view is that all the links should remain because you think that even passing popular culture references are notable. However, consensus was clear to me that in this case they are not. And I've provided evidence as to how I know that consensus exists. In reverting my edits not only did you revert changes that weren't related to the removal of content but you also re-added points in which html tags within the article code say not to include, showing you didn't even bother to read what you were editing. That, in my eyes, is poor form. Not my attempt at actually producing a version of the article that might actually be saved. Read the comments at both AfDs thoroughly and then honestly tell me that no pruning of the article is required. Polyamorph (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I certain the many editors who added the content to begin with don't appreciate you trying to remove it. You don't save an article by destroying most of it. People that hate popular culture articles will NEVER be happy with any content in them, and those who like them want as much content as possible. Wikipedia articles exist for those who enjoy reading the content, not people that will never do more than a brief skim through if they bother finding it at all. I've done enough AFDs for popular culture articles to know how these things work. It will be saved, without any prunning being necessary. Dream Focus 19:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really there are some quite notable references in that article that could and should be saved. But your insistence that everything in that article is noteworthy is not the consensus of the discussions. I respect your right to have that opinion but you can't pretend that your view is the consensus when it is not. You are probably right, the article will be saved, probably with no consensus, but hopefully with a recommendation for significant pruning. At least the last AfD had such a recommendation but as ever it wasn't acted upon. Polyamorph (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

May 2009

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

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

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

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)[reply]

They certainly do — [35] [36]. 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.[37] 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)[reply]

Your user page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikihounding versus wikistalking

I'd appreciate it if you would look at [38] and suitably amend your edit(s) at [39]? I'm asking everyone acting in my ArbCom clerk role. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Just do it please Dream, it is not worth the controversy. Jack Merridew is personally contacting the editor who made this an issue.[40] Regardless that the arbcom unanimously in two sections of an arbcom determined that Jack Merridew's sock puppet was this word in 2006,[41][42] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - The change to the harassment policy where "wikistalking" was changed to "wikihounding" [43] was made on October 27, 2008. The discussion was here and having read that, I'm actually not sure I really agree with the change from "wikistalk" to "wikihound" myself now. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I doubt they are so easily distracted, and this has nothing to do with that case. While someone might try to change the subject and talk about as many different things as possible to confuse people, or for them to simply ignore the ever growing text entirely as its too much to sort through, and thus not get involved at all, I doubt a brief mention of this will affect anyone's opinion. If its at the top of a page somewhere, please link to it. All I see it commented at is [44] Dream Focus 16:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jimbo Wales

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

caution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featherlite Trailers

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

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

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

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

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

Out of context. Read the previous comments by others in the AFD. Also, read the article. I would hope whoever closes it looks over it briefly. To clarify my position, I quoted what part of the article should convince everyone, [45]. Honestly now. It should be common sense. A trailer company is notable if the most notable racing organization in the world uses it! Dream Focus 23:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Image

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

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

Re:Incivility

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

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

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Dream Focus,

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

Report thrown out. A lame immature stunt by someone not getting their way. They know the rules, since you see them there before filing a report, and they were also told when Avanu was warned on their talk page, before deciding to go off and file a report themselves against the person warning them and a few others at the same time. [46] Dream Focus 20:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Would it be possible for you not to waste everyone's time with a discussion stretching for months now, which is so long it fills several archive pages on the Rescue talk page? You seem to have a win-at-all-cost mentality. You never participate in articles tagged for Rescue, nor have any intention of ever doing so, but you seem obsessed with wasting the time of those who do. You even state time and again that I, among the others who disagree with you, are unreasonable, etc. [47] I feel the same way about you. Why not spend some time actually working on some articles, instead of dragging this out even longer. Dream Focus 18:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware

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

You ignored consensus of those there, and cast a super vote. Bad administrator. [48] CyberShack is a reliable source. It is a broadcast television show.[49] They do not let just anyone post on their website, but decide what is worth putting there themselves. If they thought software was notable enough to put an article, then so be it. And there is no minimum word requirement. That seems like a long enough article to me. How much more could anyone write about something like this? [50] And Linux Magazine is a reliable source.[51] They are a print magazine with editorial oversight. Did you see http://lwn.net/op/FAQ.lwn ? They review anything submitted to them, so editorial oversight is there as well. Those saying to Keep the article are Qrsdogg, Widefox, Dcxf, and Dream Focus. Those wanting to delete it are Hrafn. Consensus was clearly to keep it. I've seen articles in major newspapers that are similar, since they all get their basic information from the same sources. But they don't cover everything. They decide what they consider notable to their readers. Administrators are suppose to judge the consensus of those participating in the AFD, not ignore them entirely and go with their own opinion. Consensus was clearly that the sources were enough. Please reconsider your actions. If not, I'll take this to deletion review. Dream Focus 05:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Notice

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

Ellen Kennedy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Risk of canvassing?

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

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

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

Talkback

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

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

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

Use of Rescue Tag At Origin of death stories

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

Navy-Vieques protest article

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

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

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

answer

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

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

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

Voice actors

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous deletion on your talk page

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

Both red linked names that start with the letter A. Yet, I confused you for him, whatever. Doesn't matter. I explained why I removed his spam in the edit summaries, others having done it before me. I also went to his talk page, and found someone else had already posted a warning about advertising [52] which is what he was clearly doing. Anyway, the discussion is now at [53]. And this is now competent and knowledgeable editor, but a person who added in links for no other reason than to make some money from selling things on their site. Dream Focus 18:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Awards

Hiya, I went ahead and restored the HeroEngine finalist award. It was definitely sourced as a finalist,[54] so I'm not sure why it got removed from the article? --El on ka 05:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

WP:BURDEN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Dream Focus,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gaming the system

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

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

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

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

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

There wasn't any "reasonable time" and it wasn't another AFD, it was him making the same argument on the talk page. Lets keep this discussion at the proper place. I have posted a clarification of my comments. [55] Dream Focus 02:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

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

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

Please use my talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revert on WP:Bio

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

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

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

Anyway - that discussion aside - which exact wording in the series of edits you reverted do you object to? Would you please take a look at [56], and carefully pick out what you didn't like so we can discuss it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Rescue tag

When you throw out a life preserver, you're supposed to say why the article should be rescued on the talk page or the edit summary. Neither you nor Lucifer did that. Please explain why article should be rescued on the article's talk page Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

You're still essentially saying it's OK to ignore the guidelines at WP:RESCUE for placing the template. I kinda find it hilarious that you love people placing rescue templates, but hate people tagging articles in other ways Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 15:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

ARS isn't the only people who get to decide about how the life preserver is used. Call me cynical, but I fear that the life preserver is often used less as a tool for article fixing and more as a clarion call for keepists to vote in AfD discussions. As for not have read the article when I tagged it for notability et.c., the article only had one sentence and zero refs when tagged... Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

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

I've reopened the thread per 28Bytes ok and added a link to a diff by you.--v/r - T P 19:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

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

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

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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Since when is this an actual reason for blocking? What I put on my user page is acceptable since it is my page, and related to Wikipedia, as past deletion nominations of it have proven. Also, the Article Rescue Squadron talk page I make a somewhat joking comment about the evil hordes of deletionists have finally done us in, since the template and thus the squadron have been destroyed at a rather odd AFD. How is that inappropriate? Has anyone ever been blocked for this sort of thing before? Not even a warning? Dream Focus 8:18 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

No consensus at AN/I for an unblock; please see the closing comments there. 28bytes (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sorry for the kludgey on-hold formatting. This block is currently being discussed on ANI, and thus any block/unblock decision should not be made by a single admin reviewing unblock requests. Disposal of this block should be decided by the community in the ongoing discussion on ANI. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find I can not post on the talk page of the administrator blocking me. I also can't post a reply in the discussion about me at Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dream_Focus_blocked. Lets see. Some agree my wording was obviously more humorous than emotional. Not sure how anyone could not see that. Some mention I received absolutely no warning ever for this. There was the time I commented "mindless deletionist drones" on someone's talk page [57] asking them to reopen an AFD so people who would actually do a decent job looking for sources could participate. I listed specifically why the guy was obviously notable. His work was clearly notable, thus he met WP:COMPOSER as the links I showed clearly demonstrated. Anyway, that perhaps was a bit emotional. No complaints at the time though. And no, having someone who argues with me in AFD constantly nominate my user page as well as others for deletion, a year or two ago, doesn't send me a message of any sort, since consensus was there was nothing wrong with my page. Dream Focus 13:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I really don't wish to anger a sitting arb, or get anywhere near wp:wheel. Please hang on a bit, and I'll/we'll try to find a solution. Unfortunately we can't just "unblock for only a certain page" etc., but I'll do my best to get things worked out to the satisfaction of all. thanks DF ... be back in a bit. — Ched : ? 14:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't worry about angering me. I blocked Dream Focus with sadness and regret, not a sense of righteous anger, and it is my sincere hope that this will be a wake-up call that his behavior is unacceptable and he really needs to change his own attitude if he wants to accomplish his goals. Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice for a blocked editor who wishes to comment at AN, ANI, etc is to place a separate section showing what you want copied, and then use {{adminhelp}} requesting it be copied. If you wish to specify where, then do so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can not believe what this website is coming to, punishing a user for fighting censorship, destroying a tool used to protect knowledge and information from being kept hidden from us. Dream Focus is a wonderful wikipedian and I am saddened and outraged at seeing him blocked, there were 265 of us in the article rescue squadron, imagine what will happen to wikipedia if you block us all, that is 265 less helpers in maintainig order, fighting vandalism and writing articles. I've said this website is censor crazy before, but I never knew the extent until now, I might leave Wikipedia soon, I hope more people do if this is how they treat there loyal users, I need time to think first. If wikipedia can protest sopa and pipa, maybe we can protest this, even if we have to go off wiki to do so. I support the Article Rescue Squadron and Dream Focus. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was once a member of the ARS too. There's nothing wrong with ARS...until one becomes an arse about it. Calling those who believe that a specific article does not meet Wikipedia policy for inclusion "evil" is 180 degrees contrary to the WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and the collegial editing atmosphere that Wikipedia is about. Again, Dream Focus is not blocked for believing in or supporting ARS ... they're blocked for personal attacks, WP:BATTLE mentality, and the like. Be outraged all you want - just pick your poster children a little more carefully. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't strike me as someone who truly understands what "censorship" actually means. How about you read the article on Aung San Suu Kyi, then come back to us and explain what it is? This isn't "censorship" at all, no one's trying to say that Dream Focus can't have his opinions or express them at all. The problem here is the way it's being done; if you consider that censorship, you may also find Schenck vs. United States somewhat enlightening as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My block is now "on hold" but I still can't edit anywhere but my talk page. Someone named Яehevkor posted a link to something which is now deleted. Someone trying to frame me for something? Since the edit in question was made AFTER I was blocked, and I still can't post anywhere, it clearly wasn't me. I don't believe my IP address ever changes, since my modem is always on. So it was clearly not me. Most people see my comments as humorous, while Jclemens apparently has no sense of humor. It all started off with a deletionist stating I was always going on about the "evil deletionist", so I mockingly started calling them that. Dream Focus 18:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one seemned to fall for the trolls tricks at least. @Phoenix , good comments, you may wish to contribute to the discussion over at Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dream_Focus_blocked. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, Dream got blocked for using "evil deletionists" in a discussion? Uncivil, but blockable? In 2009 I regularly referred to deletionists as book burners without much of a fuss. And deletionists referred to us as pokemon-festishists and and what have you, our good friend Tarc could dish out amusing inclusionist epithets at lightning speed.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Blocking policy

Blocks should not be punitive in retaliation against users, to disparage other users as punishment against users or where there is no current conduct issue of concern. Is there any reason to continue this block at all?

Does this block "prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia, deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and, encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms"? It does not. It has absolutely no purpose whatsoever unless you are doing it for

Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, even though it might have been justifiable to block someone a short time ago when they made inappropriate edits, it may no longer be justifiable to block them right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues been resolved.

So, what reason is there to continue this? I already stated day one, I understood that while most people in the ANI said they understood the humor, a few didn't get it, and that I'd edit my user page to word things in a more sensitive neutral manner. So why is this continuing? It doesn't matter if a few people on ANI don't like me and want me blocked, the rules state the reasons for a block to be given out and continued, and it doesn't say you need every single person that shows up in an ANI to agree with you or not. Dream Focus 19:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Did you read any of the ANI discussion? Did you read your own posting asking "what if I change 'evil' to 'bad'", which is proof that you were going to continue to disparage other editors. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, writ large. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said I understood that now. I was wondering why the word "evil" bothered people, and could I comment on what I saw as "bad" editing practices, such as nominating things for deletion without following WP:BEFORE in a different manner. I understand that some other editors perceive my words as promoting a battleground mentality, and I will watch what I say in the future and how I say it. I'm not just going to change the word evil to bad on my user page when I edit it to remove things that some might sincerely find offensive. Dream Focus 21:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... so why did it take one of the biggest fricking wastes of time in ANI where you absolutely wasted dozens of people's editing time, failing to listen to advice, and the community finally said "enough", and now finally you come to this conclusion? Are you kidding me? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stated several times already here and there. I'm not certain how miscommunications happened. I asked why people were upset, I talked through it, and agreed to edit my user page pointing out I never called anyone evil in any AFDs, etc. I don't always understand what everyone is saying emotional wise straight away, but I do my best to try. Just didn't word my responses properly so they understood me perhaps. Dream Focus 21:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the validity of the block or focusing on what other editors are doing isn't going to be effective in getting you unblocked. The blocking admin has been elected to arbcom, the admin who closed ANI and declined your unblock request runs to the cool calm scale of things, and there wasn't a lot of consensus to overturn the block. It is true the reason given for the block is a bit off -- there are lots of battlefields on Wikipedia -- it's actually disruptive editing which is the issue. Statements like this [58] read like threats you're going to continue the disruptive behavior as you as you get an opportunity; if you do, a very rapid long and/or indef block is likely.

What you can do is listen and take the heart the advice folks are volunteering their time to give you. Most specifically, can you agree simply not to classify other editors as anything? Not to comment on their historic editing trends or them at all? Simply focus on the article(s) under discussion, and calmly and concisely explain why you think they should remain. And accept community consensus if the decision is to delete them. If you can agree to do that, I think it's likely the block could be shortened. Nobody Ent 02:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to which people? A lot of people participated in the ANI and said totally different things. It was humor, it was not humor, he didn't deserve the block, he did deserve it, he should be unblocked, he should be permanently blocked, etc. And how is that edit summary you showed threatening in any way? He said bullshit to me, I said bullshit back at him. I agreed to not make jokes about the "evil deletionist hordes"(which I only did once outside of my user page), or edit summaries like "civilization is doomed" since some people seem bothered by that. Dream Focus 02:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

incl

This user is an inclusionist.

~~del~~

This editor is a deletionist.

As for the classification thing, what do you mean? There are Wikipedia project pages that classify people as inclusionists or deletionists, and hordes of users for years have used these terms to refer a specific mindset. Do you want to edit project pages that use these terms, and infoboxes as well? What about users who identify themselves on their user pages as being one or the other? Do you go and ask them not to label themselves or others in this manner? Or talk to the news media to not refer to people by these terms anymore? [59]

Personally I believe the two terms are inaccurate, since there are more than two types of people on Wikipedia. I'll try to avoid using them and find something more appropriate when practical. Dream Focus 02:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A point

It is not unusual for blocked users to be able to edit only their talk page, in fact it's standard practice, regardless of whether there are discussions going on about them elsewhere. Copying content from here to AN/I is slightly unwieldy perhaps, but does work. pablo 12:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its ridiculous whether its standard or not. I should be able to post on that page without any delay. The software could easily be changed to allow that page to be edited just as the talk page is edited. Dream Focus 12:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not ridiculous. Have you ever seen ANI or AN being hammered by IP socks of a blocked user? The problem is that the behaviour of some bad apples make it necessary to protect the project as a whole. Besides, there's no time limit to the process. Arguing that your "rights" (which you have none, by the way) are being violated by a delay is ridiculous. Indeed, seeing the content of some of your "defence", you're shooting yourself in the foot ... you'd be better off taking a moment or two to re-edit before asking someone to post it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that giving blocked users automatic access to an administrator's noticeboard would go well, somehow. Don't forget that not every block is discussed there, usually (as in your case) only ones where the blocking admin invites review of their actions.
You may find it ridiculous, but part of being blocked is that you lose the right to choose which pages you edit. pablo 12:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add an additional point that where you suggest the ANI thread is about you it is actually about the blocking admins actions. Of course your conduct is central, but technically it is not about you. I suggest you post a reasonable request to be unblocked and have the block removed by your own prudent actions. My76Strat (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did post an unblock request. And a lot of what I'm seeing there seems to be about me. Dream Focus 12:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and as I stated your conduct is central to the discussion. But you are in no peril of additional or harsher sanction. At worst the block stays as is or it is reduced or removed. So it can't get worse for you but it can improve. The most power is in your control. I am aware you have requested to be unblocked but unless you communicate some understanding of why your conduct contravenes policy and a desire not to repeat the acts, it really isn't reasonable to expect quarter. I respect if you hold your views so strongly that you refuse to retreat, but from such a stance, you may as well take the block in stride. You can be much more beneficial to ARS by editing and avoiding a site ban, but currently you seem content to martyr yourself. I'm not the most vocal or active member of ARS but I am a member and I have saved a couple articles. I'd like to save you the anguish of being party to an ArbCom case but honestly you may be placing yourself on a fast track. Chill out just a bit and remain a factor. My76Strat (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the best ways to get yourself out of a hole is to stop digging. Every reply you make to someone's support is so poorly thought out, you're digging yourself deeper. Read WP:GAB. Start to understand the actual reason for your block which has nothing to do with ARS, it has to do with your behaviour (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet several others brought up the ARS first, and continue to discuss it. And some of those who want me blocked have criticized the ARS and myself previously. So I do believe that might be part of all of this. As for the reason, I asked them already, if the word "evil" was replaced by "bad" would that eliminate the problem? Dream Focus 13:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* Your membership in ARS is only being brought up because you've become fanatical about it. Your use of "evil" when it comes to referring to other editors is a personal attack. You seem to believe that WP:BATTLE is the right way to get things done. Until you stop, admit that NPA and BATTLE are wrong, and take a look at your interaction style, you're going to be in trouble. Indeed, because you have repeated the attacks, I personally believe you should be indeffed until your behaviour changes: it can't change until you see that there's a right way and a wrong way of "saving" articles - commenting on the contributor(s) is the wrong way. Calling people "evil" is the wrong way. The fricking reality is that not all articles belong on Wikipedia yet. Some can be salvaged. Others should temporarily die until someone has the time to properly re-write them. This does not make people evil, it makes them rational. "Bad" and "evil" are still commentary about the contributor, not the contribution (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Temporarily die?" Things that are really bad can be stubbed. Sure AfD is a worth-while process, but it is unquestionable that stuff gets wrongly deleted (although less so than CSD and Prod), there are even academic papers on that. We are not now in the situation we were in when AfD was created, where we are looking at a mean time between re-creation of worthwhile articles of a couple of months, but in the process of filling in fourth order articles which probably have an MTBR of at least 5-10 years. Therefore the old "delete it, if it's important someone will re-create it" argument is no longer valid. Rich Farmbrough, 11:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You bring up an interesting point. Based on the two or three times I've scanned through the articles on WP:PRODLIST, I've found several articles that easily meet GNG or subject guidelines up for PROD because they weren't sourced. I just found a couple professional athletes up for BLPProd and easily sourced them. If we're talking about deleting articles on notable topics, I'd say that Afd is far from the worst offender. Dream Focus, maybe you should get involved patrolling the PROD lists in addition to Afd? You might find that you have more success there. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ta-dah! Great idea. As long as PROD's are fixed in a calm, respectful manner without name-calling and all within policy, it's probably an excellent way to make a big difference on the project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things I deprodded in the past get sent to AFD anyway. Things aren't obviously hoaxes, vanity pages, spam, or gibberish usually shouldn't be prodded since its the same as nominating it for deletion only far less likely someone will notice and take the time to comment on it. 517 articles are tagged for prodded now. [60] That's more than get sent to AFD and no way anyone could look through all of them. Perhaps all articles of a certain type could be nominated for AFD in batches. Those on the various watchlist [61] for AFDS should be contacted when there are prods of articles they'd normally get notice of if it was sent to AFD. Since I'm still blocked right now, someone else will have to suggest that on the Wikipedia:Bot requests. All prods should have the "Google, News, books, scholar" search thing appear on them so its just one click to search for sources. Dream Focus 17:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thoughts. If you work on BLP Prods there probably is less of a chance that someone will send it to deletion once it is sourced, particularly if you check to see if they meet subject guidelines first. In less than an hour I just sourced two articles on Pro Athletes and one on a host of a CW TV show (and I was reading something else most of the hour). Mark Arsten (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A person can do a lot of good patrolling the PROD categories and rescuing obviously notable articles. It's a fairly low-drama way to prevent unnecessary deletions as long as you're sensible about it and only rescue what you're willing to source. I do it myself occasionally. 28bytes (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request to copy things over to the discussion at the indicated places

{{adminhelp}} Someone please copy to this to the proper area under Reyk's comment.

In response to "Reyk YO! 21:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)" I see plenty of people who have been against me in many AFDs support my user page when it went up for deletion both times, as well as strangers. Its not just friends rushing to support me. There is no "support group" where we all rush to defend one another. I do however find that certain editors who have been against me at times in the past, always show up to take another jab. You mention TTN being banned, and he was in fact the definition of an evil deletionist, one that mindlessly went around mass nominating things he didn't like, such as the entire first season episode of the show M.A.S.H, ignoring consensus against mergers [62], and arguing constantly that consensus meant that even when most people were against his viewpoint, it didn't matter, because he was always right, and even canvasing on a WikiProject he knew his friends were at to get help outnumbering an "inclusionist" who noticed what he was doing. [63] He even stated on his talk page that he'd target the articles that got less views first, and keep picking them off, to drive editors away, and then take on the bigger articles after that. [64] Can we agree that calling these actions wrong or "evil" is justified? Note that not everyone who says "delete" at an AFD is an evil deletionists, nor even a deletionist at all. If you ever see someone say "just because it meets the requirements for WP:GNG doesn't mean we should have an article on it", then that's an evil deletionist. Someone who says basically they want the article dead, simply because they don't like it. I guess we need a more specific term to be invented to refer to the bad deletionists if some people are sincerely confused and bothered by my wording. Dream Focus 22:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please add this to the response of "MSJapan (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)". Also, why not let me be unblocked to comment there, if I agree not to post anywhere else? Seriously now, this is ridiculous people can say things without me easily being able to respond.

"is an assertion that all material added to Wikipedia is valid". I have not said that, ever. You are taking my words out of context. What I said was No matter how many articles we saved, another hundred or so are destroyed each day.[49] No telling how many of them were valid articles, and just needed someone with an open mind, and the will to actually look for sources instead of just mindlessly spouting their deletionist rhetoric and seeking to destroy what others had labored to create. I am of course commenting on the fact that many articles the Article Rescue Squadron saved were originally going to be deleted, before someone showed up and took the time to search for references in Google news and other sources. Since I have voted delete on things in the past, and even nominated a few at times, I'm not against all deletions. Just the ones made for the wrong reasons, or by people who don't follow WP:BEFORE. Dream Focus 23:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Goodvac (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I emailed Jclemens to ask if he'd lift the block until this was settled, if I didn't edit except at the ANI. Not really fair otherwise. Dream Focus 23:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please someone copy this to the end after 86.174.213.12 bit.

An IP address with no other edits but in this ANI, mentions something said back in 29 October 2010 which they happen to have recalled, having surely been around at that time. Log in and use your proper Wikipedia user name please. And Warden nominated something he saw as violating the rules of being a guide, he didn't just nominate it because he didn't like it. Do those with a problem with the word evil live in countries other than America? Is it used differently there? The word "evil" is defined as [65] "arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct" and "disagreeable". So I think it fits well here. Dream Focus 00:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had to get off the internet earlier, do to severe storm, and threats of lightning surges to my tiny little house atop a too often lightning struck hill. Anyway.... someone copy this over please.

The blocking administrator said I'm being blocked because on the talk page of the recently destroyed Article Rescue Squadron[66], I said "Anyway, it doesn't matter now since the evil hordes of deletionists seemed to have finally done us in." in a rather jokingly manner. There was no warning whatsoever. The blocking administrator then opens up a discussion on ANI immediately after blocking me, having a discussion about me in which I can not properly participate in. While many see the humor, others don't get it, and I'm trying to work out the reason for that, and if it really matters if the word "evil" is replaced by something that means the exact same thing. Refer to them as "bad" deletionists perhaps. It does not create a battleground mentality, since nothing I post on my user page is going to change how people act in AFDs. I have kept my over the top humorous bits on my user page only, with the exception of my last minor bit on the ARS talk page, and off of AFDs and any discussion pages. So I don't really see a problem here. If I had used the word "bad" instead of "evil" would Jclemens have impulsively banned me? Dream Focus 08:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please someone copy this next bit after MSJapan (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC) so I can respond to him.

MSJapan, you state that "a hundred articles a day destroyed" is inappropriate. But when I click on AFD [67] I see 124 results for one day, and the other recent days over 90. So yes, we do end up with about hundred articles a day destroyed/deleted. That is what happens. And I honestly doubt all of them deserve to be deleted. For years now this has continued. Does anyone have any stats as to exactly how many hundreds of thousands or millions of articles have been deleted? The Article Rescue Squadron did a fairly good job of identifying decent articles that should be saved, and helping bring them to the attention of those willing to search for references and help save them. I have the right to state my opinions on that on my user page. And I'm not putting everyone into two groups of course. Evil/bad deletionists are the ones I'm up against, not everyone who says delete in AFDs. Dream Focus 08:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please someone post this in response to Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2012

Excuse me. I should've said "are nominated each day". Most of them do get deleted I believe. It changes from day to day, so can't really be certain. I have no idea how many articles have been eliminated by deletion or replaced by a redirect. Perhaps not millions. I didn't bother to do the math. Bad math skills is not a reason to block someone. And I didn't say they should have all been saved, I said there is no telling how many should've been. Its far too easy to nominate mass numbers of articles for deletion, and far too easy for someone to go around and do what the nominator should've done if they had followed WP:BEFORE. Dream Focus 12:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Dream, I suspect the only way youre going to get unblocked is if you make a request conceding that using the phrase "evil deletionists" was unwise and undertake to try not to use similar language again. Ive probably used just as unwise language myself, but on reflection it does seem to make sense that some deletionists might be upset by the term. Admittedly, "evil deletionist" is often used in a joking way, even at the TfD by one of the delete voters. Clemens was certainly misusing the tools by blocking you without warning first. Sadly though the deletionist mindset seems too strong for reason to prevail a this point in time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Feyd - do you really imagine this is about some "deletionists" getting upset? It's about Dream Focus's battleground us v them attitude - which you appear to encourage, enable, excuse, and share. pablo 13:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Pablo, there's two sides to this so one could argue its doubly unwise. The phrase risks inflaming battle if it hurts deletionists feelings. The flip side, which I didnt refer to, is that it may inflame passions on the inclusionist side. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. And then there's everybody else (the majority of editors, perhaps) who don't define themselves using these narrow terms. pablo 14:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. And when they give their anti-conflict advice just to inclusionists and saying nothing to deletionists, they deserve exactly the same consideration as those "peace lovers" who advise victims "not to struggle" to avoid getting hurt. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just typed out a long add on to this, talking about reason and conflict, which I was going to post on your talk as didnt want to clutter Dream's. Then I saw your edit notice about not likeing existing conversations to stray onto your talk. Just dont want you to think I meant that last reply in a nasty way. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, if you want to move it over there Feyd, you have a point about it perhaps being a little out of place here. pablo 14:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked if I said "bad" instead of "evil" would that be fine? I gave examples of bad deletionists, and clarified not all people who said delete were evil/bad. Waiting for a response on that. Dream Focus 13:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Evil deletionists" are evil by definition, my friends. Non-evil deletionists are not. I recall one AfD where I said "Tarc and Jack (Merridew) put the "evil" in "evil deletionist" ". Oh, when we all had some more balls. LOL. Oh where oh where were the blockers when we were referred to as the "Inclusionist Taliban"? Letting us get the shit kicked out of us, that's where.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Milo, you work hard at improving articles. Does the conflict and drama spur you on, or distract you? Do you enjoy it, as Dream Focus appears to? Do you need it? I suggest that none of us needs it. pablo 13:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there any conflict or drama in the AFDs caused by me at all? Other than people regularly taking swipes at the ARS, I didn't see any battleground problems at all in AFDs. Dream Focus 13:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the conflict spurs me on, pablo. Generally I only watch it to the extent it entertains me. Wikipedia is no different than the rest of the internet in these things. It has always amused me that some editors regularly attack the ARS as if it has some evil purpose. The ARS is not always right, but its goal of preserving salvageable content whenever possible is laudable. Far too many times there are simply ignorant or lazy editors that nominate things for deletion that they don't even know are notable. And that damage is sometimes not reversed for many years (by article recreation), and reversing it requires effort that should not have been required. As to Dream, however, a block for saying "evil deletionists" is really quite silly. Its no Malleus "fucking cunt" situation.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a question for you Dream Focus: why do you have to comment on other editors at all? Maybe it's ok to say "evil deletionist", maybe it's not. But is it necessary? Think about the things you enjoy doing on Wikipedia, voting at Afd and creating articles, what part of that requires you to evaluate or categorize other editors at all? Even if you are correct in your statements here, would it really limit your enjoyment of the project if you stopped using the word "deletionist" altogether? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has articles, infoboxes, and help pages about deletionists, it an official term just as inclusionist is. Should the thousands of editors who use these terms stop doing it? Should it be removed from Wikipedia entirely? Dream Focus 09:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please post this in response to MASEM (t) 14:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Done pablo 15:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone please look at that talk page discussion to see an example of a problem. No information is likely to be copied over from a "redirect". Masem states "But even if zero content was added to the County article, and this remained a redirect, no information is lost. It's within the open revision history any editor can get to." In cases where absolutely no information is copied over then the article is replaced by a redirect, it the same as deletion since most won't be likely to view it in that format. Wasn't thinking about that case when I complained about eliminating articles by delete or redirect. I was thinking of years ago when a certain editor went around replacing a rather large number of manga related articles with redirects and insisting things were "merged" when not one single thing was included in the other article. Anyway, do I have the right to complain as I did on that talk page, or is that a battleground mentality? Dream Focus 14:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please post this response to -MASEM (t) 15:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Done pablo 15:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus on the talk page. Different people stated opposite opinions. So, its consider a battleground mentality if anyone disagrees with you. Dream Focus 15:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please post this response to LindsayHello 19:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"been advised, strongly, to remove the battleground mentality, but has declined to." Uh no, most people said it was fine. The few people I see complaining are the ones I see insulting the ARS constantly and arguing with me in AFDs. I broke no rules, and received no official warning for anything. Some people consider anyone posting their opinions about Wikipedia related matters "a battleground mentality" if they simply disagree with them on something. Dream Focus 20:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Done AniMate 21:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please post this response to Nobody Ent 22:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC) in response to his "Should DF be unblocked"

Can you tell me EXACTLY what "appropriate behaviors" you are referring to? Don't be vague and expect me to somehow read your mind. I asked if I replaced the word "evil" with "bad" would that solve that problem? No one answered me on that. You need to be specific. Dream Focus 22:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Goodvac (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please post this response to AniMate 23:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

So those that disagree with me calling me a bad editor is fine, but I can't do the same to them? Can I say only bad editors nominate something for deletion without following WP:BEFORE and doing a quick Google news search? Can I say only bad editors nominate the same article for deletion more than once? Wouldn't taking something others have worked hard on and mindlessly destroying it calling it "junk", make someone a bad person? I'm not talking about articles that violate specific rules. I'm referring to people who seek to destroy something simply because they don't like it. That seems pretty evil to me. But, once again, this is only on my userpage, I don't call anyone out by name, posting on their talk page, or mentioning how wicked their actions are in an uncivil manner during AFDS or article talk pages. You can't censor how people think, and I see no reason for any obviously fake and forced smiles. Dream Focus 23:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Reyk _YO! 02:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please post this reply to My76Strat (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks isn't valid here. I'm not targeting anyone personally. I am not attacking all deletionists either. I'm am complaining about specific Wikipedia related problems. And this [68] bit on my user page, with the edit summary "The barbarian hordes have overwhelmed us at last! Civilization is surely doomed." is clearly done in a joking manner as most clearly understood. Dream Focus 23:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Reyk _YO! 02:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please post this in response to MBisanz talk 00:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What processes am I disrupting? Can you link to one example of this? Dream Focus 00:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Reyk _YO! 02:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please post this in response to ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I do see that some people are sincere in not seeing any humor there and thus bothered by it. I can reword things, it isn't a problem. I tried editing my user page already, but the block prevents me from doing that. I asked specifically what people were bothered by and examples. Dream Focus 02:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Reyk _YO! 02:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please post this in response to MBisanz talk 06:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You link to a place where I made a simple mistake, got reverted, and didn't pursue the matter farther. Have you never made a mistake before? Is that a reason to block someone? The second link shows me responding to someone who is accusing a certain editor of messing with the Rescue Squadron by tagging something the editor complained doesn't believe should be tagged, and I mention a previous article the person in question had tagged to mess with us about zoophillia vegetarianism or something. I don't remember its exact name. I then make the joke I already explained, which most people commented on say was clearly humor, "Anyway, it doesn't matter now since the evil hordes of deletionists seemed to have finally done us in." since the ARS had been deleted anyway. Your third link makes no sense at all. What are you complaining about here? [69] You then link to an AFD where I, among others, thought all rumors covered in reliable news sources about Sesame Street should be in a separate article, while some felt they should be included in the existing character articles themselves, or not be featured at all.[70] Are you trying to have me blocked because you disagree with my stance on things? The next link is something I already said I regretted saying, "mindlessly deletionist drones", I was just stunned at the time that someone whose well reviewed music is heard by millions and who has a detailed interview easily found about him in a reliable source, got deleted. I offered ample links and rational as to why the article was clearly notable, which it of course is. I'll bring that to deletion review once this block is lifted. Dream Focus 09:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done pablo 09:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please post this in response to Spartaz Humbug! 11:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As many have already stated, there was no legitimate reason to block me. Apparently no one else has even been blocked like this, a full week, without warning. So why is it continuing? I already stated I would reword things on my user page. A proper conversation could've been done making this entire thing unnecessary. There is no valid reason to continue this ridiculous block. Some are mentioning the ARS and inclusionist and even linking to AFD and whatnot where I dared to disagree with them, as a reason for them to want to block me. But that isn't a valid reason to block anyone. Dream Focus 12:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I won't do it as doing so will probably be the proverbial final nail in the coffin. I've recommended you stop responding to everything. You're not doing yourself favours, and are now dug deeper than ever before. Because you fail to understand the reason behind the block, it's quite likely to become extended to indefinite. If you put half as much energy into that as you have responding poorly to others critique, you probably would be unblocked by now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about your opinions. I did nothing warranting a block, and I will not let others act as though I did. If people have ego problems keeping them from admitting they were wrong and unblocking me, then they shouldn't be allowed to have any position of power to begin with. Dream Focus 12:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my language, but that's bullshit and you know it. There's an entire ANI thread that proves your WP:BATTLE mentality, and you continue to say that you should be permitted to call groups of people either "evil" or "bad". As many times as it's been shown to you, you're still arguing you did nothing to deserve a block. What planet are you on? You are rightly blocked to protect this project from your attitude towards "deletionists" and your surrounding behaviour. You cannot be unblocked until you understand that, and THEN prove to the community that it will not ever happen again. This is not fuckling rocket-science here, and your absolute waste of the community's time by playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is truly burning what could otherwise be everybody's (including you) useful time actually improving the project. Right now the project is improved by your being blocked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you are saying is bullshit, which hopefully one day you will realize. I have the right to complain about Wikipedia things, no rule was violated. People complain about inclusionists all the time, I don't see anyone bothering them. You can't block people because how they think. A bit of rewording on my user page is all that is going to happen. I'm not going to stop complaining about how things are done and suggesting improvements. Dream Focus 12:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done pablo 12:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC) I've done this. But I really think you would benefit from listening to what others are telling you. pablo 12:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most are saying there was no valid reason to block me. I listen to people that said otherwise, and the reason for people wanting me blocked is because of how I worded certain things, or they just don't like anyone disagreeing with them in AFD and elsewhere. Dream Focus 12:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please post this response to Nobody Ent 12:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I do limit all AFD discussions to the articles being discussed. I have the right on my own user page however to list changes in Wikipedia I find troublesome, and how I think things should be done. I just need to change the wording here and there, to avoid any misunderstanding. If I want to complain about drive-by tagging, people rudely referring to things they don't like as fancruft or junk, people arguing that something should be deleted simply because they don't like it and believe it makes Wikipedia look bad to have articles that some might not take seriously, or other Wikipedia related things, I have the right to do so. Dream Focus 12:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC) DoneNobody Ent 13:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion

Hi, sorry to see your blocked. I just wanted to good faith suggest to you a couple of ways to freshen up and perhaps might help you move forward in a new way and might show a strong commitment to having understood the comments at ani - request deletion or blanking of your userpage. There are a fair few users that object to it and its already been nominated twice for deletion, so there are clearly good faith issue with what your hosting there. I would also freshen suggest fresh up your talkpage - its long and large, three hundred and sixty five thousand bytes (any article talkpage would have been trimmed long ago) and some of it is dated three years old - archive your talkpage also, letting go of the past and starting afresh - . You really can 21:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll edit my user page as appropriate when the block is over, as I have stated I would. I'm not going to have it totally deleted of course, since I see no reason for that. Dream Focus 21:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Note, I hadn't noticed how large my talk page was. I checked and I can't edit my archive subpages while I'm blocked so that'll have to wait as well. I put things into proper categories so its easier to find things. Dream Focus 22:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Agreed, make an effort to show that from now on you will comment on content and not on other editors and all of this will blow over. A good first step would be deleting the user page. N^oformation ^Talk 21:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DF - I will blank your user page for you if you request it. The whole lot is troublesome - let it go. I would go back to ANI and request your unblocking if you let go of it. You really can 21:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I doubt anyone would find 100% of my user page bothersome at all. I'll edit things that people believe target people, instead of just complaining about policies. Dream Focus 22:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you changed your post after I read it adding a bit about it being nominated for deletion before. Read those debate please. [71] 14 said keep, with only one person agreeing with the nominator to delete saying "Reluctant delete", so it ended in keep. Dream Focus 22:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second AFD was about one thing that we worked out, when people explained things properly, and I removed. The closing administrator said "Editors should feel free to raise concerns with specific elements of the page with Dream Focus and pursue dispute resolution if there are disagreements over particular content." That sounds fine to me. After the block is over and I have time to edit things there, then anyone can write out what bothers them, if anything left does, and explain why, and we'll discuss it in a proper manner. Dream Focus 22:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(after another ec) - Yes, I got a bit of an edit conflict and just put it in after, excuse that I just thought its just a casual chat. I won't read the discussion as I don't see that historic del disc is helpful now. No worries, this was just a good faith suggestion as a possible way to move forward, we are all different and that is one of our strengths, so we need each other to bounce off and discuss with - good luck and best wishes to you. You really can 22:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to archive your talk page now, and you can arrange things how you like when you get unblocked. Likewise I'll make any edits on your user page that you think would facilitate getting you unblocked. Nobody Ent 02:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Just leave it be. If people are in a hurry to see change, then they shouldn't be giving me an unprecedented week long block for poor communication skills on both sides. Dream Focus 02:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DF, I just saw the discussion. Though there is no point in reopening it now, I wish you had gotten in touch with me before you became so involved; I am not sure I could have dealt with the other side, but I could have given you some advice that would have helped you explain things as you saw it.

For anyone looking here, I will give my opinion: first the TfD close was unambiguously wrong--there was clearly no consensus, though there should have been consensus to keep the template and continue the good work of the ARS, and there would have been had it not been attacked by a single minded group of deletionists taking unfair advantage of a few errors. . second what you said in the two postings originally complained of was just blowing off steam, and should have been regarded as harmless-- even Tarc said so. third the original block of you was just plain wrong , and there should have been quick agreement to reverse it. fourth, the discussion at ANI should not have been closed. But there is no point in focussing on getting justice done for the past, rather in getting justice done in the future--it's a much better investment. At the moment, the deletionists are losing support; we have to take care they don't win it again. This is best done by quietly working to improve and keep each defensible article, without raising unnecessary general issues, going article by article, and taking the worst but only the worst of the bad closes to deletion review. Success here comes to those who are calmer and more persistent. (I will admit that personally I find each aspect of this quite a strain at present). Please feel free to email me. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would doing an unblock request make any difference at this point? Most were overwhelmingly against it to begin with. Dream Focus 16:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of canvassing

Hi Dream Focus

You accused me of canvassing at an AfD discussion. At the discussion, I rebutted the charge. Either refactor your comments or take the accusation to an appropriate forum.

^Bongo_matic 08:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't allowed to ask someone to come to an AFD knowing that they'll vote the same way you are. Whether you did it on purpose, or just didn't understand the rule, I don't know, but don't try to play innocent when the evidence is clearly against you. Dream Focus 14:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the rule perfectly. I didn't expect DGG to opine one way or the other, as I said in my comment to him notifying him of the discussion. if you review my interactions with him over the years, you will find that our opinions have been divided more frequently than not, with him frequently opining to keep an article that I have nominated for deletion. I am unaware of the "evidence" you speak of, but if you have it, please post it at ANI or wherever these matters are considered by the community. Otherwise refactor your remark. ^Bongo_matic 14:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Defense against harassment of Androzaniamy

Defending a new user from harassment(most conversation happened on her talk page though)

User:Androzaniamy

Why are you trying [72] to drag a new user into a political matter? I recognize that we must not bite the newcomers, but I feel that pulling politics into the situation, and not telling the newcomer that you're doing so, is worse than biting. --N Y Kevin @825, i.e. 18:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Political matter? It was rude to call her article crap. That is uncivil and should not be tolerated. Dream Focus 18:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Androzaniamy, please try to ignore all the negative people. The Wikipedia isn't what it use to be. In the golden age, you could make articles on anything at all, but alas, that time is now passed... they'll probably try to delete it." That's certainly political. --N Y Kevin @846, i.e. 19:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's reality. What we once had was paradise, there so much interesting stuff to read, and if you didn't like it you didn't try to destroy/delete it, since chances were you'd never find it anyway unless you went looking for it. The WP:GNG was the worse thing that ever happened to Wikipedia. Dream Focus 19:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. --N Y Kevin @861, i.e. 19:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how that fits. They have been many news articles covering the massive flight of Wikipedia's editors, leaving do to the massive amount of pointless deletion going on. They did a study on how most new editors don't hang around if their first article is deleted. Someone needs to be more understanding and explain things properly, instead of being rude and hostile and driving them away. Dream Focus 19:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[73] See? I'm supportive and understanding. :) Dream Focus 19:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's how it fits. You told me you weren't being political. I pointed out a rather inclusionist part of your comment, and then you claimed that it's not politics, but reality. Implicitly, you claimed that it was a neutral statement. Maybe the Androzaniamy appreciated the niceness, but I don't think political maneuvering like this would be very good for her career as an editor right now. --N Y Kevin @886, i.e. 20:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her career? We're all volunteers. And it isn't political maneuvering. Do you imagine everyone has some sort of agenda? Do you believe something I say or do will cause others to conspire against her in the future? Dream Focus 20:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly have an agenda. Your userpage makes it obvious. And I don't think she realizes that you have it. That's why I'm complaining here. --N Y Kevin @892, i.e. 20:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful

"And she has the right to decide who she lets post on her talk page or not" No she does not. Everyone has two rights on Wikipedia, the right to vanish and the right to leave. It is not her talk page just like this isn't yours. It is the Foundation's. It is for communication with you by the community. This is just an example of how helpful you're being; you are confusing her. It's really getting to the verge of trolling, just leave Worm That Turned to his mentoring.--v/r - T P 21:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)I agree with TP....The page doesn't belong to her and she really can't say who 'can' or 'can't' leave messages on it. But, the bigger picture, folks... seriously... Between 9:30 am (my time, sorry) and now, look at what's gone on on her talk page! Is it any wonder she's getting confused and messed up?? I'm doing my best to stay off the page... can't we ALL agree to just let her edit, let Worm give her advice, and get on with things? No judgement here on anyone's opinions or edits - except for the 'talk page ownership' thing which we could discuss here, my page, wherever... I'm saying that if we want this editor to have a chance, let's take it off her page. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone asks you not to post on their talk page, you aren't allowed to, or its harassment. You honestly should both know that by now. If you don't believe me, go start a post on the village voice or the talk page for the guidelines involving personal talk pages. And trolling would be going there to insult someone and pick them apart, not criticizing those who are doing so to her. Dream Focus 23:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice ideal world situation there Dream Focus. I've seen it over and over that administrators bypass the "please don't post" clause, because "it's not harassment, it's administrative action". What's more, I've seen users lambasted for having lists of people who can't post on their page - because it counts as a shitlist and that's problematic. The fact is, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. Remember, Amy doesn't have the weight that you do, she hasn't performed nearly as many edits, or shown herself to be a good editor yet. She's just a new editor who's having difficulty developing - because there are so many people offering her opinions.

Can I ask that you keep discussions of other editors opinions off Androzaniamy's page? I'm asking this as her mentor, a role which 1) she asked me to do and 2) the community insisted upon. I'm not asking you to back off her page, nor to stop offering your point of view, which I've seen as valid - I'm just asking for the long discussions to stop. If you'd like to discuss other editor's opinions, take it to their talk page. Would that be possible? Oh, and you're not the only editor I've asked this to. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't have the weight? Everyone is equal here. You don't gain more power because you have been around longer or have more edits. And the community did not insist upon it. A small number of people thought she should. By long discussions do you mean that one discussion? If someone insults her on her page, then a discussion should be there, not somewhere else. And it wasn't that long. Also, its already ended, so why discuss it now? Dream Focus 10:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your ideas are idealistic and utopian and so far off base with reality that it's confusing this user. You are welcome to your opinion, but you are using this user for a political battle for your idealistic Wikipedia at this user's expense. Trolling is not going and insulting people, trolling is purposefully causing trouble to see the reaction. Posting to someone's talk page, despite whether or not they've told you not to, is not harassment. Harassment is a much greater infraction. At most, it is a slight lack of civility and politeness but not against any policy. You need to cut the cross talk on Amy's page, her Mentor has asked you to back off because you are making it hard for him to instruct this user and improve their situation.--v/r - T P 13:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is the opposite of what you said at the start of this. She can decide who can or can not post on her talk page, not someone else. I was not trolling. I saw someone acting uncivil towards her, and I responded to that only. If I see someone else being uncivil towards her, I will comment on that. Dream Focus 15:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is exactly like it was at the start of this. It isn't her talk page, she has no authority or capability to enforce a restriction on her talk page against other editor's comments. At most, it is impolite to leave a message on someone's talk page when they ask you not to, it's not harassment and it's not an enforceable restriction. I'm not upset that you are standing up against incivility against her, I'll acknowledge the community has been harsh, I just think you need to be careful not to contradict others who are trying to be helpful. Your extending a incredibly low civility threshold on her talk page. There is a difference between incivility and constructive criticism. One is meant to be mean, and the other is meant to be helpful. You can't go parading a flag of war against folks who are trying to be constructive on the grounds of incivility because you are impeding her ability to grow and become an effective members. Your confusing her with your ideals which work great for you because we all know what you are about and that you are here for improving the encyclopedia, but less effective for a new user who appears to be disruptive and uncollaborative. Continuing to confuse her is going to make Worm That Turned's mentoring less effective and is eventually going to lead her to a block once the community tires of babysitting her. Is that what you want?--v/r - T P 15:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The community isn't going to block someone for posting barnstars on their own page, nor for a few minor mistakes in the past which she isn't repeating now. Most of her edits to articles have been valid ones. She is fine. There is no need to keep up the harsh criticism and picking her apart over nothing, that very uncivil. And you need to talk to some other administrators who have been around longer than you about the talk page thing. If someone asks you not to post on their talk page, and you keep doing it, it does count as harassment. Dream Focus 15:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's applying a black and white interpretation to a gray area and most of WP is gray. Androzaniamy was on the edge in the AN discussion and most likely would have been indef'd if WTT hadn't stepped up. Pointing out subtleties and counter arguments on her talk page, regardless of the fact they are not necessarily incorrect, is like offering an alcoholic a beer. For now, she needs clear unequivocal advice -- if she successfully matures as an editor, then she can start learning about the finer points of Wiki-politics. Remember one of the five big rules is there are no rules. Nobody Ent 16:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing?

We have an editor, User:Androzaniamy, who is unable to understand the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. Editors were attempting to correct her and finally PamD left what I felt to be the most helpful message of all. It was removed after you immediately left another message explaining that she could remove information as she wished and leave a message telling people to leave. This may be correct per WP:OWNTALK but it was not the advice that the editor needed at that time. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor doesn't want to see you on their talk page, then leave them alone and stay off their talk page. She already said she doesn't want to listen to busybodies and whatnot. Honestly now, why are you people so determined to bother her? I've never seen that sort of traffic appearing elsewhere. The collaborative nature of Wikipedia does not include bothering someone by flooding their talk page with nonsense all the time or pointless criticism. Dream Focus 16:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot to be learned from Dream here. If you follow the link to Sue Gardner's video presentation from this SignPost interview, youll see Sue talking about our "death spiral" of declining active editors which has been ongoing for the last few years. This isnt driven by an increase in the rate at which established editors leave, but by us keeping a much lower percentage of newbies compared to the early years.

Sue notes how in the early years folk used to talk to Newbies in the same manner as does Dream - using normal friendly language at a level that regular people can relate to. Since the death spiral began, many editors have been using wikispeak instead of straight forward english, expecting Newbies to somehow understand. Not many in the community yet share the Foundation's view on this, but keep in mind its informed by thousands of hours of analyses and meta studies of all the different language versions of Wikipedia. This is why Dream's excellent communication skills make him our very best model Wikipedian. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem though. Other editors have been friendly with the user in question, but the editor has not accepted assistance or advice from friendship. The editor was/is precipitously close to a block. While we would like to keep every single editor possible, competency is required; however, Dream Focus has been telling the editor that incompetency is okay. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor made simple mistakes early on, and a bunch of people ganged up on her making things worse, instead of politely explaining things like they should have. She does listen to those who explain things properly. Now people are doing pointless criticisms again and suggesting she leave Wikipedia if she doesn't like it. If she doesn't want someone on her talk page, she has the right to remove their post and tell them not to post there anymore. You aren't being friendly to pick apart every little thing she does and pester her. Dream Focus 14:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryan, I wish I hadn't posted now as I mainly wanted to make some general points and didn't know an editor was at imminent risk of a block. IMO Worm is second to none as a mentor and I agree its best to avoid the risk of undermining his work with mentees. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt the Amy was on the cusp of getting indef'd, and had WTT not stepped in it's highly likely she would have been. It's not enough to "count votes" at a discussion -- who is commenting and what they are saying is equally or more important. Continuing to "encourage" Amy is likely to get her blocked and is highly irresponsible. Nobody Ent 21:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She is NOT going to get blocked by telling people to stop posting on her talk page if they are bothering her. Dream Focus 21:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A10 during AfD

Actually I can. And I've done that before, successfully: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shia Genocide In Pakistan. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Coolture

Hello Dream Focus,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Coolture for deletion, because it seems to be an advertisement, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Danrok (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Duck Commander

Hello Dream Focus,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Duck Commander for deletion, because it seems to be an promotion, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Lgcsmasamiya (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert closed AfD discussions

Hi! Nice to meet you! I understand what you were trying to do, but there are exceptions to the 7-day suggestion when closing AfDs. Once one is closed, it cannot be re-opened without using the Wikipedia:Deletion_review process. If you feel that I have closed a discussion pre-maturely, that is the avenue that you should take. No worries, I know it can all be confusing. Be well.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are not an administrator. Closing something when you aren't an administrator is not allowed except under certain conditions which weren't there. Read this Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closures to clear up any confusion you may have. Dream Focus 22:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not an administrator that is correct. Neither of us are. Now that we have that out of the way, it would have been nice to have a discussion before you reverted a closure. I understand your reasoning and your logic, and you seem like a very decent person. A discussion prior to your revert probably would have resulted in me re-opening the discussion myself. It's still nice to meet you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SchuminWeb

Um, do you not think this was a bit inappropriate? Giant Snowman 13:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I copy pasted the code it says to, and that made the default message appear. Or do you mean reporting him was inappropriate, or just the wording of the message that popped up automatically? Dream Focus 13:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly templating an established user is considered poor form; it also seems trivial compared to the ongoing RFCU/potential ArbCom. Giant Snowman 13:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, he should know by now his name isn't appropriate. And there is no reason to not deal with this now instead of waiting until later. He isn't going to participate in the RFC anyway. And nothing wrong with templates like this. Its just the ones people use which tell you things you already know that are used as lame harassment at times by certain types of people. Dream Focus 14:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You also know that he's had the username long enough that it will be grandfathered in, and won't be forced to change it. We still have a couple of editors whose username is their e-mail address, but since they were created ages ago, they cannot be forced to change them (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tandem duct aerial vehicle 4.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Tandem duct aerial vehicle 4.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [74], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is overdue for archiving. Re the image: you must get a new e-mail that confirms that the image is released under the {{cc-by-sa}} or compatible licence. You then upload the image to the Commons, not to Wikipedia and forward the email to the address given here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image loaded to commons now linked to it. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tandem_duct_aerial_vehicle_4.jpg Dream Focus 13:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

… 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)[reply]

[75] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Citing Google hits

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

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

See how easy that was? [76] You could've easily just read through the summaries, looking at anything published after the year 2000 to see what was him. I can not link to the articles themselves, since all newspapers seem to require people to pay to read the full article these days, and what you end up with is less than what you can read in the Google search summary usually anyway. Dream Focus 03:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

"The problem is people like you "

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

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

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

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

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

Merge != Delete

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

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

"accusations"

I'm sorry that you interpreted my complaint as an accusation. I'm not trying to say anything bad about you, I'm just saying that you should tone down the inclusionist rhetoric around newcomers, since they don't realize that there's a whole spectrum of political opinion. Apparently I said something to upset you. It wasn't my intent, and I'd appreciate it if you could tell me what it was, so I can avoid it in the future. But if you don't want to, I guess that's your right. --N Y Kevin @898, i.e. 20:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to push an agenda. I just saw someone being rude to her in the AFD, and elsewhere, and I commented, saying what was on my mind as I always do. Its not rhetoric, its my blurting out whatever pops in my mind at the time. And people will have their own beliefs about this from the very start, very seldom anyone changing their minds, regardless of what anyone says to them. Some are what the Wikipedia defines as inclusionists, who say "hey, the actor is probably notable, or that television show gets watched by plenty of people, and its not hurting anyone to have articles for them", while others are deletionists who say" no, we don't want it on the Wikipedia for whatever reason, and we're going to try to get rid of all it". Dream Focus 20:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned at ANI

You have been mentioned in this discussion at ANI.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peacebuilding

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

For whatever reason, what could have been a two person conversation about an article has become needlessly dramatic. Instead of making this about you and me, why not wait for the policy discussion to unfold at VPP. Like I said, if the community is behind you, then there's no need to bicker. I'll gladly admit if the consensus is against me here. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to take everything personally and think its all about you. Maybe you have an ego problem or a win-at-all-cost-mentality. I don't know. I honestly don't care. You are the one dragging this out all over the place. You bringing this to the village pump does seem like an attempt at canvassing to me. I clearly pointed out to you before you did that, that all Wikiprojects discuss redirects and mergers as well as deletes. Dream Focus 16:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing personal is when you accused me of deleting stuff and ignoring consensus because I don't like it, which is completely untrue. I also let it go and offered to work with you. You're the one who escalated a two-person discussion to ARS. VPP is the legitimate forum for the kind of policy changes executed by NorthAmerica. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

You been mentioned at ANI here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DF, I weighed in as well. Your comments are right on the mark. Now, let's go back to hating each other! All the best, Drmies (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ARS

Dream Focus - is it possible that ARS can appoint a contact or a noticeboard for specific concerns or complaints? What I mean is, if there is a perception of canvassing, can there be a place where it can be brought up with the ARS itself before going to ANI? Perhaps some of these concerns can be addressed by ARS before the entire community has to weigh in. What do you think? I think it would only be effective if the ARS were receptive to it and empathetic to the concerns. Thoughts?--v/r - T P 18:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are the people whining and scheming receptive and empathetic to our concerns? They can post on the ARS talk page. And you can't accuse us of canvasing if different members have voted delete in some of the few recently added articles for consideration. I even said delete in one. Seriously, look it up. Can you find even one person that has said keep in every single thing listed? Dream Focus 18:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Northamerica1000? I'm receptive, and I think a lot of people are, to the Article List. I think the recent ANI thread on that was a legitimate concern but didn't recognize that this was a more transparent way of dealing with that concern. I've spoken to several folks on WT:ARS about some of the issues. I think that folks feel 1) ARS isn't receptive, and 2) There is no where to go to complain. If we have a couple of folks from the ARS who would hear out complaints and we could have some bi-lateral discussions on how both sides can have their concerns addressed. I think the real problem is ARS says "It must be done this way" and whatever you call my side says "No, it can't be done at all" and what we need to do is find a "How can we do this in a way that can't be abused?"--v/r - T P 18:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Step one, find proof that is actually being abused. You have hordes of determined people looking for every little thing to criticize in it, so if such proof existed, surely one of them would've found it. As far as people that don't like us, or certain people active in it, they will never be happy no matter what. Letting them get some token victory to feed their ego and satisfy their win at all cost mentality, is not something I plan on bothering with. Look at just how many articles go to AFD each day. No one person can possibly go through all of them. Surely they can find some to participate in that won't involve any of us. Dream Focus 18:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the key to the success of this is dealing with the perceptions as well as reality. As I am sure you know, perception is reality for some. So if you ignore the perception, folks are going to feel like you are ignoring the problem. What needs to happen is folks can present what they perceive to be happening and the ARS can look into it and say "Well, that's not exactly what is happening because...but maybe we can make that more clear by..." or "You're right, so we'll fix it by..." Do you get what I mean?--v/r - T P 19:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem. If they can't find any proof to back up their ridiculous claim then we can ignore them. These people have constantly been asked to show evidence of their imagined claim. There is no way to convince them of what they choose not to believe. Most people have enough sense to see the truth, so the few editors that refuse to aren't really relevant here. We might have some harassing us on the ARS Wikiproject page or elsewhere at times, but recently that hasn't been any real problem. There have been editors and groups of editors at times over the years who have gone to the talk page of the ARS and had long drawn out arguments that extended for several pages and over a significant period of time. No one is keeping them from doing so again. Dream Focus 23:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you need to combat the perception. If you ignore it, it'll get worse and it has gotten worse. Besides, I gave evidence of a particular user and it was dismissed. I'm talking about open dialogue between ARS opponents and the ARS itself. If you're not receptive to all concerns and willing to talk about them, then there isn't a point. When you hold a stick that you can wave and dismiss whatever you don't feel like addressing, you are closing the line of communication and it's not going to be used. When I have hard evidence, why would I bring that to ARS? Folks want to talk, be open to their concerns. Something ARS is doing is causing the perception. It didn't materialize out of thin air. That needs to be discovered.--v/r - T P 02:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"When I have hard evidence, why would I bring that to ARS?" What? You bring it wherever you want. But if you see an actual problem, discuss it on the talk page for the Wikiproject. I don't own the ARS. No one owns or controls any of the Wikiprojects. Stop bugging me with this nonsense. Go to the ARS talk page and discuss whatever imagined/perceived problems you think exist there. Dream Focus 02:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I bug you because your the most vocal voice and there is no doubt that you have a significant influence in the ARS but if this isn't going anywhere then I'll bugger off.--v/r - T P 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User page concerns

I see you have made some good effort to accommodate concerns about your user page, but I have other objections. For one, the term "elitist" is really just as offensive as terms like "snotty" so I think this section should be seriously amended to remove terms like "elitist" and "snotty with "snob" being another that should be removed. Honestly, the section should probably be removed altogether, at least everything from the numbered list up, because even the parts that don't use such words strongly imply the insult. I think the part about the hurricane picture is a humorous and perfectly appropriate comment for a user page. Other occurences of those words should also be removed I think.

Another section is this one where I think the heading is the only serious issue so it should just be replaced with something else.

Furthermore I think this essentially reads like providing inclusionists a loophole in WP:CANVASS. Maybe just removing the comment "surely want to preserve" would suffice.

Those are the only issues I can think of at the moment, but another suggestion I would have is that you sort out some of this material. Currently your user page is about 214 KB of basically raw text and is not easily readable. You could create new subpages in your user space to accommodate the material.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order of concerns. "snotty" and "snob" only refer to people they are trying to impress, not anyone here. Elitist is a legitimate term for people, since I don't know of any other which would work tehre, and doubt its offensive. I overlooked the amusing "Yet another decent legitimate article destroyed by the unreasonable vicious hordes of deletionists" one when I was censoring the rest of my user page. I'll rename that into something no one can complain about. I quote what the canvassing rule says, because it kept coming up regularly enough for me to comment on, and you really should let everyone who created or did a significant amount of work on an article know it is up for deletion so they can participate. There was a bot that we got made that was run for a short time, before it vanished for reasons unknown. Its rude to try to destroy someone's work without at least letting them have a say in the matter. Dream Focus 18:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While understanding what you are saying about it being said in the policy the remark about "surely want to preserve" certainly does give the impression that you are only suggesting this as a sort of a loophole in WP:CANVASS that can help editors rack up keep votes. Hence why I suggested that you remove that particular remark.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I clearly indicate after it (by working on the article's issue. Articles are kept based on the merit of the arguments in the AFD, not by the number of people voting keep. The more people that show up who are willing to try to fix any problems that may exist, instead of simply calling it by disparaging names as unfortunately happens from time to time, the better. Dream Focus 05:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Template:Rescue. Thank you. Mt king ^(edits) 00:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add that I consider it completely inappropriate to remove the CSD tag from Template:Rescue Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 03:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add that no one cares what you think about that, Purplebackpack.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. No one cares Purpleback. You are responding to something I did last week [77] before this went to a proper discussion, which is still open at [78] Stop edit warring until the issue has been resolved there. Dream Focus 07:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz

I think you need to start an RFC/U focused solely on the facts, not opinions of the facts. If you do so, I will certify it. Viriditas (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I may have posted in the wrong area. People have linked to past discussions at ANI he was involved in though. I guess we could find difs of all the times he went to someone's talk page and threatened to have them banned/blocked after they disagreed with him to show a pattern there. Dream Focus 02:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DF

I don't really know Ronz. I looked a bit at some of the links, and read some of the discussion stuff at Alicia's page. I got the impression that there were good intentions .. more a case of WP:CIR. I wasn't trying to be snarky or anything. Maybe a case of a young user who is a fanboy? I honestly don't know. Oh well, it was just a suggestion/thought. Best of luck. — Ched : ? 16:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He keeps wording things to make it sound like the discussion was about something else, and twisting things around. You'd have to read through a lot of that endless text to see a clear pattern. Please look briefly at this one section. Talk:Alicia_Silverstone#Undue_weight_of_animal_rights_and_environmental_activist_in_lede See how every response he twists things around? Dream Focus 16:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: Archive revert. Sure - that's fine. No problem at all. Was just trying to help. — Ched : ? 21:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please review BLP

"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page."

"Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources."

"Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

"Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

While I appreciate your removing the completely unsourced information that you previously supported, please remove all the information until you can find a far better source that's more in line with WP:BLP so the information isn't an obvious WP:NOTDIARY violation. Perhaps this would be best brought to WP:BLPN? --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The information is sourced to a major newspaper AND the official website of the actress herself. So its not a problem. Dream Focus 16:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I found the additional information kind of had a 'yuck' factor, but Dream is right about this. If she's willing to tell the world, it can't seem too bad to her. -- Avanu (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please review BLP

"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page."

"Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources."

"Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

"Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

While I appreciate your removing the completely unsourced information that you previously supported, please remove all the information until you can find a far better source that's more in line with WP:BLP so the information isn't an obvious WP:NOTDIARY violation. Perhaps this would be best brought to WP:BLPN? --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The information is sourced to a major newspaper AND the official website of the actress herself. So its not a problem. Dream Focus 16:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I found the additional information kind of had a 'yuck' factor, but Dream is right about this. If she's willing to tell the world, it can't seem too bad to her. -- Avanu (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "List of people who have been called a "polymath"". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 17:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems someone closed it before anyone could comment. Dream Focus 17:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian castes

Obviously we disagree about many things, but I have to raise one point with you individually. On the list deletion discussion, you said, No one is realistically going to look at the list, find their caste left out and get offended, or sue." Are you not aware that at least one long term editor in this section was driven away because caste-warriors (that refers to people who come to Wikipedia to glorify their own caste and denigrate others) had his employer contacted and was threatened to the point that it wasn't worth it? Are you aware that a current editor has been the subject of an off-wiki defamation campaign alleging paid editing (with absolutely no evidence)? And are you aware that the same editor has received actual death threats as a result of his work in this area? People get offended about caste. They get very very offended. In India, they kill each other over caste/tribal related issues. I'm not saying that this is a reason to delete the article, because obviously we rightly carry articles on all sorts of topics that people kill each other about. But the reason I'm raising this is to show you how little you understand about the topic, and that your assertions are painful to those editors who have been deeply involved in it. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those editing in India have to worry about crazy people over there perhaps, but no one is going to be coming over to America or elsewhere to attack anyone who listed a caste they didn't think should be on the list. And yes, I am aware they have crazy people over there, I seeing a news story this morning about some lunatic of a high caste telling an untouchable that their sons had the same names, and he didn't like that, and then having one of the guy's sons killed for refusing to change their names.[79] Crazy people threatening someone for writing something they didn't like in a Wikipedia article, has absolutely nothing to do with someone simply editing a list article. Dream Focus 23:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Apple Computer's 1997 Financial Rescue".

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:

It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:

It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:

Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties and no further comment is made at the opened filing, it may be failed and suggested that the next logical course of action be request for comment. Please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Failed". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Amadscientist (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza cheese merge discussion

Please do not argue with others in the merge discussion. I want to keep it on point. I'm not monitoring your talk page. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You make a comment in a section, I'll respond to that comment in that section. Dream Focus 09:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iberogast up for PROD

As you were someone who did a significant edit to this article, you may want to chime in on it. Mangoe (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your reasoning for de-PROD didn't make much sense. Perhaps you could elaborate on your reasoning? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can not be claimed to be a promotional article, since it isn't trying to sell anything. Its out of patent, anyone can make it, and its been prescribed for decades. Dream Focus 13:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original article linked to a single manafacturers website multiple times, so yes, it does appear reasonable to conclude that it was trying to sell something. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That edit made a lot of edits while on Wikipedia. Linking to a website that has the name of the product with a .com behind it was a simple mistake obviously. Since the article says the product was created in 1961, I'd not assume it was an ad at all. Its important that people follow WP:BEFORE instead of just trying to delete something without doing even a quick Google news archive search. The first thing that appears in such a search is significant coverage in a well established science magazine. Anyway, all discussions about the article should be focused on its talk page. Talk:Iberogast#About_this_article Dream Focus 15:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's address this now before it spreads, shall we?

This seemed rather pointed and borderline personal, as did your reversion of my edit at Sega CD earlier today. I understand you're not happy with my points of view which differ from yours, but I can detect that this is starting to go from opposing points of view to a deeper level which I don't think either of us want to reach. As such, I'd much prefer if we can talk this out and come to a reasonable understanding, separate from the Sega Genesis discussions and keep things polite and friendly; that even if we disagree, we can respect the viewpoints of the other and hold discussion cleanly. What do you say? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through everything listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion and that was one of the things nominated for deletion. It is ridiculous you didn't spend a second clicking the Google news search to see all the reliable sources covering it. I have for years criticized lazy nominators for wasting everyone's time with pointless AFDs, so don't take it personal. And I can not respect the viewpoints of others, if their viewpoints are to waste everyone's time trying to delete things, without following WP:BEFORE. You also just casually eliminated another article without any discussion, nor spending a moment looking for reliable sources that covered it. [80] Dream Focus 08:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you did at Sega CD previously to me finding my way to the AFD in question, is totally unacceptable. [81] You wish to eliminate the article List of variations of the Mega Drive, so you eliminate where it was linked to in another article. Also instead of fixing a table that appears too long in the default zoom setting of Firefox's latest update, you just deleted it. You should try to fix problems, don't just destroy everything. And you replaced a specific number with the word "several" which is not the encyclopedic thing to do. Your edit summary comment after I reverted you "Is this seriously the way we're going to play this?" seems to indicate you are taking this too personally. Dream Focus 08:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see then where we're having some issues. I understand you're very much an inclusionist editor, and I can respect that, having been one before myself. While that was the case, I very much see myself nowadays with a category of editors I'm sure you're familiar with, deletionist-mergist-redirectionist (DMR for short), though I more preferentially lean toward merge and redirect over deletionism when applicable. That is my way of fixing problems, by taking a good hard look at the notability and encyclopedic value of an article, weighing out its content, and acting appropriately with WP:BOLD where I don't believe it will stir up controversy, or discussing it where it will. Such is the case with Menacer and Turbo Touch 360, and even though Turbo Touch 360 has been covered a little in the media, I still doubt it will ever make more than a Start-class article, and that bothers me (i.e. for a third-party accessory, is it truly revolutionary? Is it actually a noteworthy subject or did a few period newspapers just happen to touch on this device briefly?).

Trust me, my contributions will show you I don't just hack up a bunch of articles, but I do believe in high standards for articles and carefully weight out their potentials as articles or as sections within other articles. The latter is the case with List of variations of the Mega Drive, and the redirect in Sega CD was because we have a quality section in Sega Genesis, much more so than is in the list, and as of the current moment would be a more helpful link to the reader—and on a brief side note, I eliminated the number because we really don't know what we are counting; Sega CD itself had two variations, along with the Multi-Mega/CDX, two versions of the Wondermega (along with two versions of the X'Eye), LaserActive, and Aiwa's player, but what are we actually counting when we give the reader a figure like that? The table adjustment as well was because the length was getting absolutely ridiculous, and trust me, it's in more than Firefox's update—I don't use Firefox. Now, in regards to the variations list, what you're going to need is something to assert notability for each variation, something I do not think is feasible, but hey, if you can rewrite the list and prove me wrong, I'd be happy to withdraw my support for a redirect. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Purplebackpack89

October 2012

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Talk:Before Watchmen. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. p b p 22:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You ignore my question by accusing me of making a personal attack. Don't dodge the question with nonsense. I've responded at the proper location. [82] Dream Focus 22:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm gonna keep ignoring your question, here OR there. Besides, an article talk page isn't where you have a dispute with another editor p b p 22:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is when you bring it to that location. Dream Focus 22:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. You're turning that discussion into a battleground, repeating the same practices that have thrice gotten you blocked before. I don't have to explain to you why I chose to comment in a particular page. EVER. p b p 03:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know what you did, and you know it was wrong. You keep trying to change the subject to something to totally unrelated. In 2009 I was blocked for 24 hours for undoing vandalism and violating the 3 revert rule by mistake. In 2009 I was blocked for a simple mistake on a talk page, for 12 hours, which meant when I logged back in the next morning and saw it, it was over already, too late to protest. The third time I was blocked was earlier this year in something that many administrators in the discussion about agreed was inappropriately done. No possible reason to be bringing that up in this case now, other than to try to distract from the rule you violated. Dream Focus 08:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Rescue List template in its own TfD

Surprise, surprise, I consider it highly inappropriate that you tagged Rescue list for Rescue. You used an article rescue template on another template. The tag is supposed to be used to incite improvement of articles; but you're just using it to get all the ARS members to vote "keep" just as you did with Template:Rescue and articles. (PS: go ahead and take me to ANI for all I care. You'll just get a boomerang, and notify all the mops who are upset about ARS being a drama sink that you guys are up to no good) p b p 18:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking even crazier than usual today. I responded to your nonsense elsewhere. [83] Keep the discussion there or in the ridiculous deletion discussion you started for this matter. [84] Dream Focus 19:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It ain't nonsense, it ain't ridiculous. It's a carbon-copy of a SALTed template; it's being used for the same nefarious purposes as the SALTed template was. You just proved that by using it in the TfD, when the template (and the list) are just for articles. Frankly, with your record, you should be indef blocked for such ridiculousness. And if you think I should, start the dang ANI thread already. p b p 19:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this going to be one of those things where you just drag things out all over the place for as long as possible? It does not have any "nefarious" purpose, its just the same exact thing all Wikiprojects have, to inform people at AFDs that their Wikiproject was notified about the discussion. And its not the same template. The template deleted was this massive thing, complete with a picture and a paragraph of text, that was placed on the article itself, not the AFD debate. Dream Focus 19:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. p b p 19:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! It appears you are as confused as ever. If you nominate a template that a Wikiproject uses for deletion, people in that Wikiproject must be told. Its not canvassing, its common sense. Dream Focus 20:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point to the policy that says so (which, FYI, doesn't exist). Until then, I maintain that the template was misused. It's for articles only, not for templates. If you don't like that it's being deleted, whine to some mop about it. Oh, and while your at it, tell yo boy CallawayRox to stop NPAing me. p b p 20:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not concerned since I know it won't be deleted. All Wikiprojects have them so we're fine. And why would they write a policy just to tell people like you something so obvious you should automatically know it to begin with? How young are you exactly? I'm guessing between 11 and 14. Dream Focus 20:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. p b p 20:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I love how pbp "templated a regular" two times above. There's no finer example of good faith editing, is there?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He/she did it on my talk page too, in response to my listing the template on the ARS list. Rather than debate whether or not what I did was canvasing, I simply deleted the section from my page. Please leave a message in my sandbox if you can inform me that my posting of the template was canvasing or not. —Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC) (I meant to sign that!) - ʈucoxn\^talk 20:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreamship

..has been closed, and not as keep. You know why? Because you were too busy accusing me of WikiHounding to even bother to a) vote, or b) improve the article. Let that be a lesson to you: if you weren't so busy trying to start shit with me, that article might still be around p b p 01:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bother with that article, since I only found one reliable source, and you need two to convince people to keep it. I just deprodded it because of the one source I found. And are you trying to teach me a lesson? You believe someone was trying to start shit with you, so you went and nominated an article for deletion that he had just deprodded? Odd you'd manage to find your way there if you weren't following my contributions, which is of course wikihounding, and against the rules. Dream Focus 02:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Dream Focus. You have new messages at Purplebackpack89's talk page.
Message added 18:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

p b p 18:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, another HOUNDing accusations

This is what, the fourth you've levied against me? I believe I have asked you to steer clear of my talk page. Also, you know perfectly well that there are a helluvalot of ways to get to an AfD other than through your contributions, the AfD log being the most common. I've voted on 3 or 4 AfDs just today. You voted in an AfD I started within the last 24 hours, therefore there's really as much argument to be made that you're stalking me as I am you. In short, you need to stop the hounding accusations before I take you to ANI for disruption p b p 23:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You had no way of finding your way to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Violations_of_the_Ceasefire_of_21_November,_2012 other than following me, as you have done in the past. You don't go to that many AFDs, so its not likely to keep happening by chance. Dream Focus 23:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) pbp has edited 359 individual AFD's (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean lately, not total over the years he's been here. With all the AFDs open right now, what are the chances he'd just happen to show up in one I was in? Dream Focus 00:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you yourself have edited about 3500, they're not that long. The main point is that you've now accused me of stalking way too many times, particularly since the last few times you went to ANI, you were roundly repudiated, and that I can point to numerous AfDs (1, 2, 3; plus this ANI) that would, by your standards, amount to you hounding me. The point is, you need to drop the stick immediately. And the "you had no way" is bullocks when there are a whole lot of ways to get to any particular AfD, and I must also remind you that voting in a few AfDs here and there in no way constitutes HOUNDing. HOUNDing would be participating in every single discussion you participate in, which its blatently clear I have come nowhere close to doing. You have blown this out of insane proportions to the point of accusing me of HOUNDing almost every time we edit the same page (which only happens once every few weeks, I might add), and that is disruptive and frankly warrants a block p b p 01:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your first example is ridiculous. I deprodded it, and you then sent it to AFD, which I participated in since I had the article on my watchlist after deprodding it. [85] You can't accuse me of following you if I went there first. And in the ANI page, someone mentioned these other articles, that how I found my way there. I was watching that article since I had a section above it which your link shows titled Wikihounding by Purplebackpack89, which was closed with a suggestion I bring it to request for comment instead. Dream Focus 01:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the diff I provided is to a ANI on a third party (GabeMc, who had tagged over a dozen articles I created in the span of only a few minutes), not me. You used the ANI to berate me. Why is it OK when you do it (which you pretty clearly do), but unacceptable when I do it? Oh, right, I forgot, you're totally hypocritical p b p 02:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was already monitoring that page for the discussion above so I noticed that. I don't follow your contributions around ever. You know you do that to me, just not constantly, just from time to time when you think you can get away with it. Kindly get a life and stop hounding me. Dream Focus 02:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't follow your contributions around ever". The evidence would suggest otherwise p b p 02:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have no evidence at all. I on the other hand have shown time and again where you are clearly following my contributions.[86] You aren't fooling anyone. Dream Focus 02:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm seeing from you is innuendo p b p 03:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And all I'm seeing from you is someone lying constantly to try to hide what they are obviously doing. Its rather pathetic really. Dream Focus 03:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have forgotten that occasional monitoring of other's edits is perfectly acceptable. After all, you do it to me p b p 04:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not do it to you. I have never done it to you. I know what the rules state and I honestly would prefer to avoid people like you entirely. And it is not acceptable. You think you can get away with it if you do it occasionally instead of constantly, but its still hounding. Dream Focus 04:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer to avoid me, why participate in the discussions I linked above? You had a choice on those, and in all four cases, you chose engagement. Also, if you don't like engagement, why post to my talk page? And those are hardly the only cases where you've chosen to engage with me in a discussion I started or participated in first p b p 13:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I deprod an article, then obviously I'm going to check in on the AFD and if I believe it should be kept, post keep. You didn't get there first, you arrived after me to nominate something I had deprodded. Avoidance doesn't mean hiding or changing what I'd normally do. I don't stalk you by checking your contributions looking for confrontation, while you on the other hand obviously do that to me as often as you think you can get away with it. Dream Focus 14:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the GabeMc ANI and the Clinton and KOXY AfDs? I suppose you can explain those away too? I remind you again that checking other user's contributions is not and never will be against the rules; heck, loads of mops do it! You are just as bad as I am and you know it, yet you don't see me starting pointless ANI threads accusing you of hounding me and TenPoundHammer and God knows who else p b p 15:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was at that ANI complaint already for the one I filed against you hounding me. I of course notice the new discussion of someone else accusing you down below and clicked the links there. I did not find the links by checking your contributions and deliberately going after you. These are unrelated things. You are upset I accused you AFTER you were caught doing it a few times? And I never accused anyone else of hounding, other than the now banned editor Jack Merridew, and that was years ago. Don't try to drag unrelated people into this. Dream Focus 15:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honest politicians ARS canvassing

You do realize the following, right?

Despite its rename, the article violates numerous policies and guidelines
It should have been closed as delete the last time, but was only NC'd because you and Warden canvassed your ARS keepist buddies, as your again doing (and, no, ARS is not a legit WikiProject, and never will be)
It is perfectly acceptable to renom something closed as no consensus at any time
I didn't even start

In short, you and Warden need to stop spreading inaccurate information, and consider policy more carefully p b p 15:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)While I !voted delete to this specific article, this post by you is harassing, PBP. That ARS is a legit wikiproject has been reiterated year after year. The inaccurate information that you should stop spreading is that of "ARS canvassing". -- cyclopia^speak! 15:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I was brought to this AFD by ARS, also !voted delete, and agree that your accusation is inappropriate. DF did not ask for !votes, he asked for people to improve an article. In this case, I think that request is futile, but making the request is certainly not inappropriate. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I have to agree with editors Cyclopia and Gaijin42. The ARS is a legitimate project, home to several of Wikipedia’s most scholarly editors. Its storied history stretches back almost exactly 6 years. The legends and heroes of the ARS will never be forgotten. Sadly, since about 2011 it seems to be watched by more deletionists than active sensible voters. If an article is controversial and under attack for other issues apart from notability, mentioning it on ARS could easily do more harm than good. It might have been a rare misjudgment by Dream to post about it there, but certainly not canvassing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to that opinion, but I'm entitled to believe that the ARS continues to be used to disruptive ends on a regular basis, this being one of those instances. Have there been any improvements to the article addressing the concerns in the AfD? I thought not (and the concept of the article is so flawed so that there really can't be). Dream Focus is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. And the fact is I didn't nominate it for deletion the first time, and it's not disruptive to nominate it now (it's been four months and it wasn't closed as keep), so he/Warden are wrong there on both counts, and I am well within my rights to call them on it p b p 18:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm entitled to believe that." - No, you're definitely not entitled to accuse a legitimate project of canvassing, nor to dismiss its legitimacy. You may disagree with ARS, you may disagree with their members' philosophies, but you cannot harass good-faith editors nor launch unfounded accusations. If you have proof of WP:CANVASS violations, go to AN/I and show it -otherwise you should really avoid this behaviour. -- cyclopia^speak! 18:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus lost my assumption of good faith ages ago, most recently with the inaccurate information above, which you continually fail to acknowledge p b p 18:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one said you nominated it last time. You did try to delete it though, arguing with everyone in that AFD, but didn't get your way, so you are gaming the system by trying yet again. And you mentioned the ARS, making an unfounded and ridiculous often disproved accusation about this wikiproject. You could've nominated it without the slanderous attack. ARS is and always has and always will be a legitimate Wikiproject. Dream Focus 18:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no inaccurate information -at most, a divergence of opinions. PBP, this continuous harassing and ad hominem attacks go nowhere. You don't like people who would prefer to keep articles you would prefer to delete? Fine, let's agree to disagree, move on. All this whining about the ARS is ridicolous and insulting. I don't go harassing deletionists when I don't get AFDs my way. -- cyclopia^speak! 19:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PBP, please notice how many people are always against you on things like this? [87] 16 people said speedy keep after a new editor renominated the same article for deletion two days after it closed. You said: "I, for one, believe that immediate renomination of a no-consensus close is perfectly acceptable, and I can find no policy that suggests otherwise." So it doesn't matter if its been months or just a few days. No consensus does not mean keep trying until you get the result you want. Dream Focus 19:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, don't tell me what to do. EVER. And I stand 100% by that statement that things that are closed as no consensus can be renominated. What the heck do you think a relist is? Renomination, relist, same idea. The only nominations that you should wait a couple months on are things that have a consensus for keeping, merging, or redirecting. And you linked to a vote (a vote heavily influenced by the ARS, I might add) rather than an actual policy or guideline. There is no policy or guideline that says "An article that has been nominated for deletion with the deletion closed as no consensus cannot be renomination". And there never will be. And even if there was, four months have passed since the previous nomination, so that particular nomination (which is almost certainly going to end in delete) is perfectly acceptable. I'm going to keep on keeping on, whether you like it or not, and you need to accept that I have violated no policy and I am perfectly entitled to believe that ARS' actions are disruptive p b p 22:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can believe any crazy thing you want. You are not entitled the right to state this ridiculous bad faith accusations at the start of an AFD. You need to get your battleground mentality under control. Dream Focus 00:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Dream Focus, don't tell me what to do. EVER." - Watch out, we've got a badass over here. -- cyclopia^speak! 07:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]