Oh get over yourself. I did not call an actual person a fool, saying only that whoever went and nominated it for 7th time would be a fool, do to their actions. Its only against the rules if I insult an actual person, not someone who doesn't exist yet. DreamFocus16:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I misread it as "the same fool". I suppose the warning for WP:NPA in this instance isn't apt, although your ongoing antagonism and insults -- even if vaguely thrown -- certainly run counter to WP:CIVIL. --EEMIV (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening to have someone blocked is antagonistic and insulting. Next time read things carefully, before tossing out a threat like that. It isn't something you should do so lightly. On another note, would you believe it is antagonistic and insulting to constantly go around trying to delete articles that are less than one day old, or have already been voted Keep several times already, ignoring consensus and trying to delete something people said Keep(this is called a merge, even if nothing is merged, you just have to put a redirect there), accusing someone of nonsense constantly, mentioning the same idiotic examples of something even though its already been discussed and worked through(the canvasing nonsense), etc.? Have you read through everything on the most recent trial of character? I would like some comments on specific examples, and whether you believe they should bring up these same exact things, every chance they get. Also, was it wrong for me to ask my question here? Two editors who are accusing me seem to be very against me being able to do this. DreamFocus18:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite preaches civility, but does his own unsolicited advice apply to himself?
LOL! He joined wikipedia to delete stuff that most people like, and unfortunately he can't do that now, so he is quitting. Since we've faced problems with him before, closing AFD his way, ignoring consensus of all the keeps, I'm glad to see him go, and more so that I was one of the ones that caused him to give up(although he'll probably be back soon enough). The golden age may come again, and the many articles that thrived since the time when wikipedia was young, only to be destroyed by hordes of deletitionists later on who decided the encyclopedia shouldn't have such things in it, shall be restored. When notability guidelines are replaced entirely by common sense, or a large tag atop them saying "these are just suggestions people! Use the reasoning part of your brain for things!" I dream of a day this will come to pass, and wikipedia will be the interesting paradise it once was. DreamFocus00:30, 21 May 2009 (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. pablohablo.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. DreamFocus23:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[2] 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. DreamFocus00:14, 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.
I've been in enough to know how things end. There is no vote of the general populace on any of those essay/guideline/policy pages, it all up to whatever small group camps out there the longest, adding what they want, reverting others, and arguing nonstop until the other side gives up in frustration. Therefor you can't expect any reasonable person to take any of it seriously. Wikipedia is not a set of rules. You ignore all rules, and use common sense. DreamFocus10:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, you've never had even 1% of Wikipedia users participate in any of those things. And what exists now, was not there in the early years of Wikipedia, back in the golden age, before the evil hoards of deletionists forced their will upon the silent masses, changing policies, and mass deleting things calling it cruft, hacking large chunks of articles away because they didn't like it, and nominating many others for deletion. DreamFocus10:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I Digress
Dreamfocus: I suggest you pick up the March 2010 issue of Comic Buyer's Guide and read the column "But I Digress." I think you will appreciate it.Padguy (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of ironic that during the AFD, they didn't consider you a credible reference despite your experience in the industry, but as soon as you publish something, it does become a credible reference used to establish notability. Same guy, saying the same thing, but only when its in print, do they take it seriously. And there are articles for a lot of things the actor has had a significant role in, as the blue links in his filmography section of his article now indicate. You mention the deletionist nominator didn't consider Space Cases to be a notable work, and yet is long had an article on the Wikipedia. DreamFocus14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are quite correct in your analysis. The ignorance I keep seeing displayed in Afds never fails to stun me. See this example. "Minor"? He is considered the founder of the many decades old and international scounting movement that has affected millions of people. Moreover, he was one of the commanders in the siege of Mafeking, one of the two most important in the Boer War. Winning one of history's decisive victories in a significant colonial conflict (one of Britain's costliest and most well known from that era and one with long-term ramifications) and founding one of the most well-known international movements is hardly "minor". As far as his alleged homosexuality not being a "vast topic" is just ludicrously false. Do a Google Books search of Baden-Powell and sexuality or homosexuality and you get hundreds of results with multi-paragraph anaylses in published books, such as in this paragraph or this entry. Declaring him "minor" reflects a lack of familiarity of his actually significant role in history, something any historian would know. Saying his sexuality has not received significant attention is either a false declaration or yet again reflects either not actually doing any even cursory research or having no real knowledge of the subject. And in a larger sense, humans as living creatures are driven in a significant part by their biology. The notion that our sexual desires does not influence us is ludicrous. In order to understand important historical figure's motivations, we need to consider even the controversial aspects of their lives. Now, from a purely academic standpoint, AfDs are frequently so out of touch with facts, honesty, etc. and are therefore so surreal as to defy just about any seriousness. Actual experts on any given subject do not frown upon Wikipedia because it covers some subjects that a vocal minority arbitrarily and usually ignorantly deem non-notable, but we frown upon Wikipedia on occasion rather because a vocal minority arbitrarily and usually ignorantly deems subjects for which they are not experts non-notable. And we keep seeing that every time someone bafflingly refers to someone with actual historical significance in at least two major instances as "minor." Just as we do with the example of the image you have recently edited, i.e. as the article cites an instance in which someone wanting to delete refers to a guy as a female amidst other factual errors that anyone familiar with the subject would not make. One other thing to keep in mind is that it is not as if "deletionists" outnumber the masses. One of the major failings of AfDs is that they do NOT reflect the actual will of the community. They are nothing more than a snapshot in tiem reflection of usually at best a dozen editor's who happen to be familiar with Afds. Most critically is that those with the mindset you describe are far more apt to hover around AfDs, whereas most others prefer article contributions (I like welcoming new editors myself...) or are sufficiently busy in their real lives so as to be unable to devote time to such discussions. Thus, we end up with scenarios in which thousands of people come here for an article that scores of editors contributed to being decided by a handful of accounts that in many instances have neither interest nor knowledge in the subject under discussion and because they personally are not interested in it and thus are unwilling to do any real research to see how it can be sourced/improved, they declare it is not worthy for anyone else either. We can generally agree that hoaxes, libel, and copyright violations have no place on Wikipedia and so I would never fault someone for wanting to protect Wikipedia from legally damaging or dishonest content. But once we start seeing calls to delete based on subjective bases, such as notability, then we start getting into deletion as a matter of personal preference indeed being forced upon others. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk05:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User page
I like your userpage. The topics and things you come up with is similar to the type of things that I see yet don't have the time to get to involved in them. Anyway, I may visit your user page from time to time to get a low down on what happening on wikipedia. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dream Focus, Narutolovehinata5 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Yeah, no problem. We all make mistakes at times. Just try to imagine the feelings of a first time Wikipedia contributor next time around. DreamFocus07:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question regarding merging
Hi, I was directed to your essay/note on how merging is de facto deletion a few weeks ago and in scanning your userpage I thought I saw something about an RfC or something similar regarding one of these kinds of merges (where instead of merging the article it was just redirected). I was wondering what the result of the RfC (or whatever it was) was. Are the "powers that be" fine with this kind of thing? Was there in fact such an RfC filed? This is an issue I feel kind of strongly about. Thanks for any help in this matter. -Thibbs (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be more specific. Are you talking about the manga/anime merges or the Ultima merge perhaps? The discussion for the merge of Ultima was at [3] and the majority of people participating said they were against the merge. It never should've happened. Search the discussion for "7 against the mergers, 4 for the merges, and 1 guy for one but against the other two. I think consensus is to not merge anything." I'd also like to point out that there was canvassing at the Wikipedia video game board [4] by a deletionists flat out asking for people to support him in destroying all of the Ultima articles. Read his comments please. An edit and revert war happened, I finally just waiting at the administrator notice board for an administrator to get involved, but none of them responded. DreamFocus04:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can find someone posting about an AFD that ended in merge,but the article was just replaced by a redirect instead. [5] Several editors protested this, saying some information should be merged over, as was consensus. If you look at the history of the article it was suppose to be merged to, you can see the first of many reverts by various editors was done at 07:41, 6 February 2009 by Kintetsubuffalo[6]. It went to RFC as I recall, and consensus was to merge information. After a few weeks, that information was deleted again by the same stubborn deletionist. The discussion was on the talk page [7]. It then went to Wikiquette board [8] but was closed after some arguing there, with the message to send it to another board, which I recall we did. DreamFocus04:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm not sure what it was I thought I'd seen then. This last example you gave me (the Akane-chan Overdrive incident) is exactly what I'm talking about, though. I find the use of a simple redirect following a vote to "merge" to be exceptionally sloppy editing to the point of recklessness. When such a redirect (under the name of a "merge") is performed by someone who knows better (e.g. an admin) then I think reprimands are in order. WP:MERGETEXT clearly states that of the two kinds of merger which may be performed the only options are the copying-over of all of the content of the "merge-from" article or the copying-over of some of the content of the "merge-from" article. Copying over none of the content, I would argue, is simply "deletion" against consensus (assuming there's been a AfD). WP:MERGETEXT lists 2 "actions which must be performed for both merger types" and the precursor condition to step #1 is "copying the content" (The rule begins "1. After copying the content..."). WP:MERGETEXT is described as a how-to guide detailing a practice or process, but I think that it's most closely comparable to Wikipolicy as opposed to, for example, an essay in userspace. At the very least, a how-to guide detailing a practice or process should provide evidence as to the primary meaning of the term as used by voters in an AfD.
I was kind of hoping that this reckless and perhaps at times underhanded practice had been addressed in the "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" section at RfC. I'd really like to see some sort of consequence to follow if any of the people patrolling RfD can be shown to be consistently doing this sort of "redirect in lieu of a merge." Maybe this isn't the best solution though. As I write this, it strikes me that perhaps all we need is for an editor or group of editors to monitor all merges and to put up a template warning editors that have failed to perform a proper merge that their actions have been reverted and to please try again. (This assumes I believe correctly that the default position for a pre-merged article is "keep until merged") Sounds like kind of a full-time job... Hmm. I'm kind of busy these days, but I'll try to come up with a template like this in the next few days. Do you think such a plan could work? -Thibbs (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought: Perhaps a study should be done regarding how commonly these kinds of merges are occurring. Gaining endorsement by WP:UW for a warning template of the kind I discussed above would probably best work if the systemic problem is empirically demonstrable. I'm very busy off-wiki for the next weekish, but hopefully I can devote a little time to such a study after that. -Thibbs (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Sorry to inundate you with messages like this. Here are some example templates I just made quickly to demonstrate what I'd be interested in ultimately. -Thibbs (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There have also been times where they "merge" over everything from a group of character articles, and then trim it down to reduce 99% of it. I haven't seen that happen lately though. Anyway, good look with the warning templates. It'd be great if they had something like that to prevent problems. DreamFocus16:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On tagging but not posting
There's some articles that I find on AfD that I believe just barely meet notability standards, so I add sources and the tag to them. But I am not entirely sure about their notability, so I wait to see where the discussion goes. If it overwhelmingly goes to Delete, even with my sources added, I don't bother with it. If it's about even or mainly Keeps, then I will add my voice.
There's other articles as well that I am entirely unsure about the notability and I don't tag them with the rescue template, but I do add all the sources I can find and watch the AfD page. That way, I can see how they go.
In short, the ones I don't comment on, I do that because I am not sure about the notability of the pages and I wait to see where consensus is heading before adding my voice. SilverserenC07:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe he is doing that again, nominating articles he previously nominated in the past, but failed to have deleted. Remember, when you contact everyone from the previously AFD, as the rules state you can as long as everyone is contacted, you should mention "The guy who nominated this article for deletion last time, has done it again. The article is EXACTLY the same content as last time. Everyone who participated in the AFD last time is being contacted." Or they might not consider that neutral. Just mention its the same AFD they did last time, instead of just asking for an opinion, in case they don't remember this, and don't know why you are telling them about it. DreamFocus04:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus03:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See how easy that was? [9] 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. DreamFocus03:43, 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. DreamFocus04:44, 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]
Wherever I go on Wikipedia, your username seems to pop up (maybe I notice it because of the colors (or should I say colours) but I notice anyway). Although we obviously have different points of view I like the way that you battle for the freedom of speech and information on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! (Or is that to British?). But the real reason why I am here is that, maybe in future, I would like to quote some of your statements in my user section. Would you be comfortable with that? --JHvW(talk)15:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dream, thanks for helping to save the Kinetic Architecture article from being destroyed. It was a really interesting subject to research, there are stacks of amazing transformer style buildings out there, shame we are discouraged from posting links to vidieos. One of my faves was a giant bird that sits atop a museum, its wings are so big it can cover the whole building at night and it can also use them to protect visitors from blinding sun or from rain storms. I added it to the article, hope you have a chance to check it out as id guess you'll find it of interest to. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely endorse Heroic inclusionist against the evil deletionist hordes
At least I feel understood! I have changed the Title of my article as you suggested, thanks FC 18:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Note: Moved from userpage by me. Airplaneman ✈18:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Its amazing that 10,161 new users had their articles deleted, and only 64 remained to continue editing after that. Many just having their article nominated or prodded for deletion, or it turned into a redirect, might take off as well. DreamFocus02:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you do it?
Dream, you probably don't know me, but I wanted to ask you something. I first encountered your tag on AfDs, which is the only thing I occasionally peruse now. From there, I found your user page, and that is when I was convinced that you are definitely a kindred spirit in heart. I used to be quite active on Wikipedia, but after an incident involving a deletionist (nominating hundreds of articles a day after tagging them with every notability tag possible - including ones that made no sense), I lost heart. A lot of work is now gone, perhaps forever, over just not being able to keep up with what he was doing. I did save one! - (Bunnies & Burrows) - but others of equal references went bye-bye in ways you describe on your user page. So, now that I've given a little background, I have a question for you. How do you keep on going? In the past, I was passionate about trying to help Wikipedia. I took a break after the Gavin incident, and after two years, he has finally been banned. However, hundreds (maybe thousands) of articles are now gone - and each one could have been saved. I am just not sure I want to even try anymore. What would be the point? Wikipedia has changed - and I am not sure I want to be part of the environment it has become. Yet, you strive forward - and try to make a difference. Feel free to reply on my talk page if you like - or keep it here. I look forward to reading your response. (Interesting note, I had to comment on some AfDs really quick to get my recent posts high enough to post this here) Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think anyone but new users can post here, and you are only a new user until you have been around for four days and made at least 10 edits, or something minor like that. As long as you are logged in and not an IP address, it shouldn't be a problem. The relentless rampage of the hordes of evil deletionists does indeed cause many to loose hope at times. But I focus on the majority of AFDs I participate in that end in Keep, instead of dwelling on the unfortunate few that end up getting deleted. Its horrible when logic fails, and the bad guys get their way, however for the most part, as long as enough people show up to notice what's going on and comment, the articles are saved. If you see an article that you believe can be saved, tag it for the Rescue Squadron and help is on the way. Category:Articles_tagged_for_deletion_and_rescue. Be warned of course, some deletionists do sometimes go there just to find a reason to delete something and insult us. Must be careful to remain calm and not sink to their despicable level. DreamFocus01:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletionists
Just been reading your excellent defence over at the RfC. Sometimes it feels like theres such a chasm separating us from our deletionist friends that there no way for productive dialogue to occur. Some seek to preserve interesting content and a friendly welcoming collegiate environment while others seem to be here just to destroy knowledge and practice their verbal attacks. There can be no bridge between these two camps.
On the other hand Im becoming increasingly convinced that the way deletionists are portrayed in the media as spiteful book burners is only telling half the story. Theres examples like Ironholds who start out hyper deletionist but then progress to being sympathetic towards inclusionists. A couple of months back I chanced into an off wiki conversation with a deletionist and it turned out theyve spent the last ten years as a campaigner for a very good cause that I know is close to your heart. Just after I had to visit Stockholm so on the trip I read Markings by the Swedish mystic Dog Hammarskjold . It started with a quote from the even great mystic Meister Eckhart saying "Only the hand that erases can write the true thing". It felt like God was trying to tell me that some deletionists really do think destroying articles is genuinely helpful.
I guess the point Im getting to is that AGF is important even with deletionists. We may see no possible good faith explanation for their actions and arguments but that doesnt mean one doesnt exist. Its not good to risk hurting someones feelings if they actually think what theyre doing is for the best. I know its hard when they try to personalise debates, attack the squad and attack the good name of legends like Benji, Anobody and Ikip. But I think you said it best yourself – its always important "not to sink to their despicable level". FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I'm an American, where I know that while other nations might possibly exists, none of them are nearly as important or worth bothering with. They all spell things funny and drive on the wrong side of the road anyway. DreamFocus10:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the above was a joke against the obvious stereotype Americans have in some places. Reading again now, that might not be clear. Should've included some winking smiley faces. DreamFocus22:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you question on the page for robotics design, and that is what led me here. From your talk page I see you as someone who values what he stands for over self-indulgent pride, and though I've known people like that that to never admit to needing a compliment, you are by a long-shot the person I've read anything about here that I admire the most. I won't leave you a badge, or a kitten, but a blessing; “Y’varekh’khah Adonai v yishm rekhah. Ya’er Adonai panav elekhah vee-khunekhah. Yeesah Adonai panav elekhah, v’yahsaym l”khah shalom.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 06:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfD abuse?
Is it possible to have action against someone who abuses the AfD process? For example, if the editor nominates many articles which are clearly already well sourced and notable, and always kept by the administrator, can the track record result in a complaint of abuse of process? One particular AfD has caught my eye, but I have not looked for a track record yet. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those who nominate the most AFDs just use Twinkle to click a button and instantly nominate one article after another. Shameful really. Tell them to please follow WP:BEFORE and then when that fails, you can take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Or.. one of those boards. If you post in the wrong one, someone will tell you where to move it to. DreamFocus08:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus14:07, 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. DreamFocus14:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Help with an AfC?
Hi! I know we've run across each other in the AfC or AfD boards, and I know that you've done a lot of work here on Wikipedia. I wanted you to take a look at an article that I've declined due to lack of sources and then kind of erm... adopted. If the claims in the article are true (and I have no reason to believe that they aren't), then this is someone that needs to be included on Wikipedia. Since I've dipped my hand so deeply into the article and helped edit, I can't in good faith approve the page. The original article writer hasn't put it back up for submission, but I wanted to let you see it so you can decide if it's something that is ready for prime time yet. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Linda wolfe Thanks! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
I found some coverage of her straight away. I'll work on the article. This isn't a problem really. The New York Times mentions her throughout the review of one of her novels. [10]DreamFocus08:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If her books are notable, then the writer is notable, by rule of common sense. Her official website list reviews her books have received. [11] Any book that gets two or more notable reviews, can be made into its own article, as I have done with one of them already. DreamFocus08:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Type in the web address of any newspaper or magazine she is said to have written for, and then search for her name. I added a link to a New York Times article she wrote. I think the article has enough references now to be put into mainspace, notability clearly established. DreamFocus08:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dream, thought you might be intersted to hear that the wikipedia stub for Zuccotti Park was responsible for that location being chose for the world's very first Occupy general assembly. Apparently this is even though it was just a "skeletal entry" at the time. Thank goodness deletionists arent always allowed to have their way and destroy all our stubs! When far sighted historians write the history of the early 21st century, I suspect folk like yourself, the Colonel and Ikip will be listed as heroes of the Age. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus01:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help?
Would you mind taking a look at User:Samen54? It's a new users attempt at an article deleted via AFD. I've no problem restoring it, but it needs some major fixes. The AFD had sourcing concerns that seem to have been addressed. I'm busy studying for promotion right now and I have another article someone else has asked me to write and I just can't do this thing too.--v/r - TP03:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's got a few sources in the new article and some on my user page but I just can't sort through it all, fix the citations, trim the article, and take it to DRV.--v/r - TP03:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Someone familiar with "psiquiatra" would have to look through it. I went through Google news archive search for his name and the shorter version of "Jaume Canellas" and searched also for "psiquiatra" to try to find some significant coverage of the guy. Running the results through Google translator, and I don't see anything that other than them quoting him at times about a hospital and whatnot. DreamFocus03:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they were against it before, they'll be against it now. And you don't need to post anything telling the closing administrator there are now references in the article. You just list what the references are that prove notability, in the AFD like we always do, and they can look at that. Then they look at the standard responses of people insulting the references found.
That's not enough coverage(things like computer software never get a full page review just a paragraph or two) since we measure things by number of words spent talking about something, not the content of those words themselves.
Complain that even if its listed on the reliable sources noticeboard as a reliable source, they believe its a right/left wing publication, and thus it should not count as a reliable source
State that a full page article about a writer/artist/sculptor/composer's latest work isn't mostly about them but their creation so doesn't count to their notability
Insist that pointing to the official website for a television show that list that they did review a product on a certain episode, doesn't count towards notability since if you can't find the entire episode online somewhere, then you don't know if it was a long review or brief mention
Insist that while coverage of the activities of a High School count as significant coverage for it, that the same sort of coverage for an Elementary School, A sheriff's department, a fire department, or others, does not count towards its notability.
Mistakenly state that either the General Notability Guidelines or the secondary guidelines don't matter, that you need to meet both of them to prove yourself notability, then argue nonstop about that misconception.
State that coverage showing a book was a bestseller doesn't count, nor is confirmed sales mentioned in reliable sources showing millions of copies of something were sold, because those are just "big numbers".
A tag has been placed on Oddcast (company), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bazj (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the guy who tags a sufficiently large number of articles for speedy deletion within a short period of time to take a moment to look at things more closely perhaps? Then check up on their record to see if they need to be taken to ANI? That might work. Lot of guys like that out there though, and its hard to sort through the many nominations to see which ones are valid and which ones are invalid. You need to show a regular pattern. DreamFocus15:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"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. --NYKevin @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". DreamFocus20:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus16:56, 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]
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 - TP18:18, 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? DreamFocus18:33, 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 - TP18:37, 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. DreamFocus18:45, 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 - TP19:33, 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. DreamFocus23:18, 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 - TP02:19, 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. DreamFocus02:23, 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 - TP03:40, 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. DreamFocus18:39, 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.DreamFocus05:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is some confusion at the relevant talk page as to what you meant by this edit. I interpret your edit summary ("no need to repeat word for word what is at the top of the page") as meaning that you were eliminating an unnecessary redundancy, but another editor is interpreting it to mean that the redundant text (about significant coverage) was removed because it does not apply to nonprofit organizations. Your input at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Question about WP:NONPROFIT would be appreciated. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I explained it well. "no need to repeat word for word what is at the top of the page" was in my edit summary. The very first two sentences on the article are being copied over to another section for no real reason at all. I went ahead and explain on the talk page also. Secondary guidelines exist to show some things are notable even if they don't meet the primary guideline at WP:GNG. DreamFocus03:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. No one cares Purpleback. You are responding to something I did last week [13] before this went to a proper discussion, which is still open at [14] Stop edit warring until the issue has been resolved there. DreamFocus07:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! I forgot to tell you. I was trying to think, who to tell, and who might not want to be bothered. It can be put on any page at all. DreamFocus13:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, FYI, it only works on each editor's own user and user talk page. I saw this posted on your user page and was surprised that any editor could apparently create an editnotice for any article; after looking into it, I was relieved to find that that's not the case. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:30, 27 March 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. DreamFocus13:49, 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_articleDreamFocus15:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite
Hello Dream Focus. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
Just responded to it. Hope the message is gotten across by those with open minds and the determination to make things happen. DreamFocus02:03, 6 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. DreamFocus02:50, 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]
I made a reply to your comment on that page, asking you a question. I wonder, could you perhaps answer that question? That would be greatly helpful, thanks.Newquestions?05:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! Just a note, I've expanded/revised my comment at the above AfD discussion. When I was doing so, there was an edit conflict, so you may not have seen my revised comment. Since you commented there, just letting you know about my comment revision. Northamerica1000(talk)19:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, good finds. I am still surprised there wasn't more, but I assume its because Google news search isn't all knowing and complete. DreamFocus20:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. All other web search engines should be eliminated, and then the whole world could route all of their searches only through Google <<sarcasm>>. It sure would be an improvement for the {{Find sources}} templates to be enhanced with additional search engine options. Fact is, Wikipedia may be overly-reliant upon Google, in which Wikipedia becomes based upon Google search results. Northamerica1000(talk)01:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What other search engines handle news search? I just tried Bing, and it doesn't go back more than seven days. Web search engine list a lot of them to try though. Yahoo news search for this has zero results. [15]DreamFocus01:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I just do standard searches on main search engine pages, rather than in their news sections. When doing so, sometimes just typing the word "news" and a comma, and then the subject creates results not found in other searches (e.g. "news, Raleigh Downtown Live") (without the quotation marks). Northamerica1000(talk)11:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well mention other search methods I've used, of which you may or not be aware of.
Using quotation marks in searches (e.g. "Raleigh Downtown Live") can narrow search results, in which only results which have the entire term are generated.
Sometimes to omit results, adding a minus (-) sign and url addresses for unwanted sites can result in higher-relevance hits (or at least higher relevance hits per Wikipedia's notability standards, to omit sites that aren't valid for demonstrating topic notability) – e.g. "Raleigh Downtown Live" -Public-relations-hype-that-doesn't-prove-notability.com.
To narrow searches to specific sites, here's something that works in Google searches, an example from when I was working on the Taipei Community Services Center article: Taipei "Community Services Center" site:www.taipeitimes.com This returns results only from (in this example) www.taipeitimes.com.
Then there's the find sources templates, which I have had success with, particularly Find Sources3, which has the most options.
{{Find sources 3}} GBooks · MSBooks · GScholar · MSAcademic · GNews recent · GNews old · NYT recent · NYT old · Wikipedia Reference Search
Maybe some of this information could be added to the search tips page you created for ARS. Even better, perhaps information from that treatise could be included in/merged to the ARS guide to saving articles page. I don't have the link for that page you created, could you list it here? Here's an opportunity to improve the ARS page! Northamerica1000(talk)15:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I created a page somewhere. Anyway, add to it as you see fit. Having all helpful information about finding sources, etc, on one page makes it easier to find and sort through. No sense cluttering up an already long main page. You can edit it as you see fit. You do a lot more work than I do on Wikipedia these days. DreamFocus16:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! Just remembered. Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications is where you sign up for getting a HighBeam account, and that will allow far greater power in finding news sources. Someone mentioned it on the ARS talk page somewhere. Perhaps regular members who haven't signed up already for it should be reminded. DreamFocus18:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the strangely placed Ĥ om the header. I was in Explorer and I forgot that you have to wait until all the special characters have loaded before you start editing.Bjones (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just curious, it rather strange to see. I don't even know how to make that character, I never seeing it again. I use Firefox since Internet Explorer always had so many security problems, and Firefox just does everything better. DreamFocus03:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pornbio Strawpoll
I've seen you was the one who had requested it. A strawpoll started a couple a days ago, you can vote and share your opinions here. Regards, Cavarrone (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.RyanVeseyReview 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. DreamFocus16:09, 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.RyanVeseyReview 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. DreamFocus14:56, 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 Ent21:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.
Survey filled out. Not sure what good it will do. Until they have set unchanging rules to clear things up, everything will continue in its current state of unnecessary stress and confusion. DreamFocus18:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation for comment
As you are an experienced editor, and in particular has been very constructively helping damaged articles, your opinion would be appreciated in this, as yet, non-consensual and criticaltalk. Thanks, Excalibursword (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly thanks very much for your comprehension and determination. A user had previously restored the page over there, thus seemed more complicated renaming it (and in the original talk the complainers messed all the assessments), than just keeping it and inserting a link to the original talk (which was done in the first section). This seemed enough to me, but really sorry if this made it some unclear. Now, in any case (not earlier and not now), it is evident that there isn’t a consensus to blank anything, but unfortunately some user just reverted the redirects along with unbelievable summaries. Likely you will think very useful the links: here and here. All best, Excalibursword (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dream. I got impressed for the polemic produced in that debate, and seemed very, very unlikely the deletion of the article. In cases like that is it not obvious that any article should be kept? How is possible one admin taking that final decision? It is clear that a neutral committee should decide that. It seems pretty much a contestable act over there, therefore a clear case to the Deletion review. My main problem is finding time to all this, however I will be there if you or some else do the request. By the way, thanks for all; you are a true knight. Excalibursword (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm busy with other things in life and don't have time for a long drawn out debate I don't think will go anywhere. The people that put that area on their watchlist and show up regularly usually side with the deletionist mentality. DreamFocus14:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes the fight is more important than the victory or defeat.Dream Focus, you did a lot and well. We fight every day of our lives, keep in mind fighting to right principles (as you done over there), then you and all will be always winning. Barnstars are interesting but here is a more useful tool to you. Excalibursword (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a battleground, just a place were opposing camps see who can argue the longest at the guideline pages to get things their way, and use the results to justify elimination types of articles they don't like. A place where people arguing nonstop at AFDs over whether articles should be kept or deleted, people seldom agreeing with one another or convince of someone else's viewpoint at all, locked into what they believe at first, and refusing to budge from it. DreamFocus19:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not mention GOG here? Video game articles almost invariably mention if game is distributed through distribution services like Steam or Desura. GOG is a licensed distributor, not a retailer. It's a game publication channel just like others. Listing individual retailers that carry games would indeed be an unmanageable proposition, but not so in case of digital distribution channels.
Also, "a lot of sites sell the game, but no reason to link to them" is inaccurate. Ultima series is not available through other digital distribution channels, and until GOG started distributing them recently, they have been only available second hand in recent years. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I searched Amazon [17] and the official website [18] and find you are right. That is odd a big company like EA would sell its old property through someone else, when they could easily do it themselves. Maybe they own GOG. DreamFocus19:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. [19], 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.
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]
I happened to just be reading about good old Ultima and, as I am wont to do, I fiddled with it, specifically adding 'needs improvement' and two 'unreferenced section' templates. Then I noticed you had just been doing something in re: citations, so I just want to point out my changes were made unawares of yours, and shouldn't be considered any kind of reaction or whatever, just MHO on the current state of the text. ofc, as a long-term WP'd'n, I won't be the least offended if you choose to disagree w/ my edits entirely. Be bold, I ALWAYS say. Unless I'm feeling whiny... Anyways... Eaglizard (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reasons to add citations there. I know some of the information is somewhere in the Official Book of Ultima by Shay Addams version two that I own and read, and the rest is probably listed somewhere. Having played all of the Ultima games I do remember having to answer questions to prove I had the manual, and thus didn't just copy the disks from somewhere. But whatever. Maybe someone will feel like looking up information. I don't think any of that is really in doubt, or slanderous in any way, so I'm just going to ignore it. If you feel like it really needs the tags, leave them in, if I have convinced you otherwise, then remove them. Whatever, no big deal.DreamFocus21:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar
I very much appreciate what you do. I think it is very sad that some Wikipedians, and people in general, act the way they do, only trying to get things their way and not listening to reason or thinking for themselves. The world needs more people like you. Biglulu (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually DreamFocus is not being accused of that. How about you and that other editor both just tone it down a little bit? -- Avanu (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that Finn and Flame Princess are dating, but to solidify the evidence for it, can we get a url reference to a reliable source? Ratemonth (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the transcript on the wikia site might violate copyright laws, so you can't link to it in the article. I'm not sure. I did link to it on the talk page. DreamFocus14:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!
Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).
If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pizza cheese. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coolture until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source information request
Thanks for helping out with the Pizza cheese article. I've been working on it, and I was wondering if you have access to this paywalled source:
If you do, I'd like to add a quote to the source in the article to back-up this statement in the Pizza cheese article: "Each year in the United States, 700 million frozen pizzas are sold, 3/4th of which contain contain cheese substitutes." (The information isn't in the abstract for the paywalled article).
If you could provide a direct quote from this source, I would use it as a quote addendum to the reference in the article. It sure would help out, and I would truly appreciate it. If you have access to it, and the time, feel free to post it on my talk page, or add it to the source in the article.
Click here [20] and you can see what I saw in the summary. I tried Highbeam, but it won't show me that article. And questia and credo are as worthless as ever. DreamFocus16:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought since you have been editing this page, you might like to know that I would like some input on whether it meets either of two CSD requirements.
You can see them here: link
Here: [21]. Since you clearly hadn't read the arbitration remedies, it seems reasonable to allow you to self-revert your remaining edits. Do you intend to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind - did it myself, though it might have looked better for you if you'd promptly self-reverted when the problem was first raised. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Minor oversight on my part. Doing several things at once on my computer. And I don't really care what things look like. I wondered why the guy before me added then reverted, it looked like perfectly valid content. Anyway, I'll have to start discussions for each bit, and find reliable sources to back everything up beyond any reasonable doubt I suppose. DreamFocus18:49, 3 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. [22]DreamFocus22:23, 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 pbp22:24, 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. pbp03:42, 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. DreamFocus08:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dream, I just saw that you took that to DRV, and also commend you for having the balls to do so. When that was on for speedy deletion I had removed the tag and suggested it needed to go to AFD, but it was deleted soon afterwards anyway. See User_talk:The_Devil's_Advocate#List_of_pedophiles. I am very uncomfortable about any actions we take that appear to provide comfort to pedophiles. How can pedophiles deserve a pass when a List of convicted war criminals does not? I don't understand how this was speedy material.--Milowent • hasspoken14:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Food for thought
When there are that many people piling up on the other side of an issue, it's useful to contemplate what that means, I have found. It might have been better to let this one go, I think. Herostratus (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It means many people will look at a title and not bother thinking things through before making a decision. Or will actually believe some nonsense about Google caching something and it on the internet forever, destroying people's lives? Ridiculous. DreamFocus20:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I gather you didn't learn anything from this. That's too bad. I make mistakes -- we all do, I guess, except maybe you -- and contemplating them helps me to learn and grow. Oh well. Herostratus (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made no mistake in this. I used logic to try to reason with people, while they simply refused to think things through, and thus one more perfectly valid article is lost to Wikipedia this day. DreamFocus00:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I kind of resent that comment. I'm logical. I'm intelligent. I think things through. I've thought about this kind of thing for a long time and have a fully formed and internally consistent view the matter. So just maybe there's something else in play here. Herostratus (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are in denial. Others have gone there and agreed with my reasoning. A simple name change would've solved all problems. If its fine as a category, no reason why it wouldn't be as a list. Only those convicted of the crime would be on the list. Google does not store a permanent copy of anything, the cache updated regularly, so that concern ridiculous. And if vandalism ever was an actual problem, semi-protection could be placed there to stop new users from editing it. Please go there to debate these issues on the proper page if you can come up with a logical reason why it'd be a problem. DreamFocus06:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.[23] 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. DreamFocus23:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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) pbp18:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking even crazier than usual today. I responded to your nonsense elsewhere. [24] Keep the discussion there or in the ridiculous deletion discussion you started for this matter. [25]DreamFocus19:32, 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. pbp19:40, 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. DreamFocus19:44, 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. pbp19:59, 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. DreamFocus20:07, 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. pbp20:11, 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. DreamFocus20:16, 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\talk20:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could help. I'm just added a bit more now. Lot of Highbeam results to look through. If people took time to look for sources before trying to delete something, the Wikipedia would be in a much better condition. DreamFocus15:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article Rescue Sqaudron Arbitror
This award signifies that Mr. Dream Focus is the very first
There are no coordinated attacks. You don't see anyone joining in some AFDs tagged for rescue, and when someone does join its never that many people, and they don't always say to keep things either. DreamFocus15:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer
Hi Dream Focus. Would you like me to make you a reviewer? I remember thinking that it was a shame you weren't a reviewer when I put the Duck Dynasty article under pending changes protection, but for some reason I never did anything about it then. Just say the word, and I'll flip the reviewer switch for you so that you can review IP edits to that article yourself. Let me know what you think. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)14:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Please explain to me what WP:Routine means, and whether it means that "routine" coverage of local companies by major daily newspapers is not coverage qualifying as independent reliable sources. In other words, is coverage by the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal the standard, and daily newspapers or particular city business journals are not independent reliable sources? You will easily guess what I am annoyed by in asking you about the standard. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Routine coverage is only things like restaurant reviews in places where they review every single one. Of course if they gave it praise that stood out from all others, that'd be more than just routine. Saying a new business opened in town and talking about them isn't really routine, since they don't do that all the time. A small town might mention a new local ice cream shop next to the drug store in their local paper, and that'd just be routine. DreamFocus14:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, are the sources I provide at Talk:Innovation Works#Sources to be considered reliable independent sources, or merely routine coverage and not reliable or independent? To dismiss the daily newspaper articles as routine coverage, and the business journal articles as based on press releases, means that most local or regional businesses have no coverage on which to base an article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just commented in that AFD. Bizjournal is just press releases, so don't bother listing them, they not a reliable source for notability establishing anyway. They can still be used to get information to put in the article itself though, provided you mention the company announced so and so, or the information is not in doubt anyway at all. Anyway, that is not routine coverage. DreamFocus13:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if you are an administrator? If you are do you know how I can get the deletion case closed on an article I created: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amirite
Unfortunately for political reasons, they'd never let me become an administrator. The deletion discussion will close after 7 days have passed, and will most certainly end in KEEP. It was a bad nomination by an editor who unfortunately does that quite a lot at times. DreamFocus00:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - ok thanks:)
I saw the comment you said about the tech entrepreneur's week -i definitely saw that it came as a top 3 winner when looking for resources but I can't seem to find the link anymore - I found this email so you can ask them for proof: izzyfox@gmail.com but I'm 100% sure they came as a top 3 winner— Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs)
You have mail!
Hello, Dream Focus. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I could only find one reliable sources covering the song, and if you don't have at least two it gets deleted. So I gave up working on it. DreamFocus03:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it can be tricky finding the right citations! I've founda fewsources that talk about the song. Here's a few more [27][28]. It will probably be a while until I'm able to really dedicate lots of time to editing some of her singles. If it reaches the point where I have time to edit "Anything We Want", would you mind if I edited in your userspace (assuming you haven't expanded/moved it before then)? Ruby2010/201304:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind. I'll be glad if the draft becomes a proper article one day. Once it gets to a decent enough level, just click the Move tab and put it in mainspace. DreamFocus04:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Article Rescue Squadron and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.
You doubled the size of that article with just all the references alone for one person. [30] You don't need that many references to prove the information. List of Renaissance men does seem to be redundant to the list of polymath article. What's the difference? DreamFocus01:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just updated the polymath list adding the Renaissance men and women that were missing. So the List of Renaissance men also seems redundant to me too. Combining the articles would put everything in one place. With similar meanings on polymath and renaissance man the title "People called polymath and or Renaissance men" would also make sense. For those screaming about people like Steve Jobs being on the same list as Da Vinci, adding another section underneath the polymath list for the few "universal geniuses" solves it. Bhalluka (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Calling someone a fool, even on your talk page, is a violation of the WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL policies. --EEMIV (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Northamerica1000(talk) 02:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
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. pbp 22:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
