User:Dream Focus/storage

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

Part of it reads:

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

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

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

Merge straw poll

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

Heads up
RE: Wikipedia_talk:User_page

A prominent editor who deletes a lot of material from Wikipedia has your own user page in her sights, guess what her one and only solution is? [And if you guessed, leaving well enough alone, you would be wrong]

She will be stopping by to say hello soon, since I accidentally posted this on her page first. :( Ikip (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * you seem to have some pretty prominent editors who delete a lot of material from Wikipedia on your talk page, so you must be doing something right. Ikip (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident
An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiScrubber (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I voted to keep. And for the deletion review I voted to restore it.  It wasn't just a regular news item, this one had an important and notable event worthy of an article.   D r e a m Focus  00:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Notability for Manga
Seeing your interest in establishing notability in manga, I'm inviting you to take a look at and comment on User:NocturneNoir/Sandbox/Notability (manga). Thanks. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR (t &bull; c) 21:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I use those arguments in the AFD all the time to try to save manga, sometimes succeeding. Depends on who is around the day to vote.  Tried discussing it on the notability book guideline page before, and nothing came of it.    D r e a m Focus  22:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Early days user:Dream_Focus Dream_Focus

between double brackets, user colon and name

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 19:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Fictional History of Spider-Man
Discussion about people who claim to love something, but who keep trying to destroy it

AFD for Fictional history of Spider-Man
Hey Dream Focus! We need more opinions on wether this article should go or not if you feel like participating. Thank you. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Same guy nominating it as last time I see.  The article hasn't changed too much since last I worked on it.    D r e a m Focus  23:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Soliciting your input
Hi. There's an attempt to bring the History of Spider-Man article, which needs enormous work, up to encyclopedic standards. You were among the editors in the deletion discussion, and it'd be good to get your input on, and edits to, the work-in-progress at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fictional history of Spider-Man
Following three attempts at having this page deleted, a number of editors collaborated on bringing this multiply-tagged article up to policy and guideline standards of Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Comments were solicited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man since May 26, and a final draft, created over a month of editorial input, was completed and put up for final comment at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man on June 25. On June 30, this consensus version, which confirms to Manual of Style (writing about fiction), will replace the current page Fictional history of Spider-Man. As you have contributed to that page, we wanted to alert you to the opportunity for final comments. Thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have commented on your removing of valid information for no other reason to cut the article's size in half, and hope others do the same.  D r e a m Focus  01:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, what you say is not factually accurate. It is not "for no other reason to cut the article's size in half." It is to conform to Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and to WP:PRIMARY. The size of the article really doesn't have anything to do with it. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just responded on the appropriate page. Lets keep all future conversation there.   D r e a m Focus  05:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

User:A Nobody
I have reverted your edit here. You state in your summary the user has not edited for a month. This is understandable, considering the message they left at the top of the page which indicates that they will not be back for several months. Please do not blank their page.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since he is blocked and can not edit his page himself, he emailed me and ask me to do that for him. I allow anyone to email me through that Wikipedia option, and am still active in the ARS, so I was the one he contacted.  I should've made that clear in my edit.   D r e a m Focus  05:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they can. Their block does not revoke that privilege. I would rather be more comfortable if they did it themselves.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 05:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This verges very close to proxying for a banned editor. WP:BAN indicates that such edits can only be made if you have an independent reason for making such a change, and I don't think you do. A Nobody can clear it himself if he so desires.&mdash;Kww(talk) 07:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. That involves editing in articles and whatnot, not changing that person's talk page so he stops getting emails from automatic bots saying an article he made was nominated for deletion.  But if he can edit it himself, then its a moot point anyway.  Nothing was done secretly, or with intent of getting around some obscure poorly written rule that most people have never even heard of.   D r e a m Focus  12:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

nb: I've not made a single edit on list.wikia.com; the edits there under my name were *all* made on en:wp and transwiki'd there, mostly by a nobody, I think.
 * Indeed, WP:BAN has nothing to do with otherwise uncontroversial housekeeping tasks in the user space of a banned user. A redirect from the talk page to the user page is ok I guess but can be a bit misleading. I think the most helpful thing to do here is replace the talk page content with a retired tag and forget it. Automated posts can be cleared out from time to time, or the page can be protected from editing, to shut it down altogether. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have cancelled the subscriptions to Signpost and the Military History newsletter. Any modifications to the talkpage that A Nobody wants should be done by A Nobody - SirFozzie's post here is pretty clear.  pablo hablo. 15:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It perhaps wasnt crystal clear as it seems administrator KWW may have interpreted the indef as a perma ban, or else why did he talk about proxying for a banned user? I will raise the matter with arbitrator Sir Fozzie, with a view to having unorthodox indef block reverted. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see any reason to list A Nobody as a banned user, or to do anything that goes with it. Also, at this time, I see no reason to lift the indef. If and when A Nobody feels up to returning full time he can do so by posting an unblock request (which should immediately be granted), and the ArbCom case should be opened at that time. I don't see a problem with the housekeeping being done. SirFozzie (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All indefinitely blocked users are treated as banned users so long as the indefinite block is in effect: WP:BLOCK clearly states "If a user is blocked indefinitely, he or she is considered a banned user until an administrator unblocks the user.". A Nobody isn't being particularly inactive: he's been wandering all over Wikipedia importing things to list.wikia.com, where he is blocking editors he doesn't care for, even though said editors have never edited on list.wikia.com. I can't help but suspect that this event was designed to architect a claim that he had not seen Sir Fozzie's notice. The only other motive I can think of for not clearing his talk page himself is to make sure that his IP address trail ages enough that he will be stale for checkuser purposes.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * His IP address trail ages? Sounds like a rather ridiculous conspiracy theory to me.  If he was able to do so, he would've done so, but since he doesn't have his password, the simplest route was to just ask someone else to do it for him.  If he temporarily blocked certain editors he felt were hounding him, to keep them from following and harassing him over on a Wikia, as the comments he left in the edits state was the reason, then that's his business.  That has nothing to do with the situation here.   D r e a m Focus  01:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit summary he used when he blocked me on list.wikia.com has been redacted by Wikia staff due to it being an unfounded allegation of criminal conduct on my part; see Kww's link above, where it states: (comment removed) . See http://list.wikia.com/wiki/Special:BlockList for the original: sock account of indefinitely blocked user from Wikipedia who long term harassed others on and off wiki for years. The "off wiki harassment" is patent nonsense, of course (and pretty funny given that the distance between Ohio and Bali is 10,000 miles), tool and the on wiki dispute amounted to an editing dispute. Anyway, I'm with SirFozzie on this; AN is not banned, he merely has a pending AC case. Daedalus is prolly not the right user to be messing with this, though. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 03:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it still says the same as it always did. Perhaps since you aren't logged in, you can't see it all.  And you did harass him constantly in the past.  Not sure how you ever got unblocked with your continuous record.   D r e a m Focus  03:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See the redacted block log where it now says (comment removed) . And no, I never harassed him, I commented on his inappropriate editing. I'll tell you how I got unblocked; I tell the truth and discuss concerns reasonable people may have. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 03:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was clear. A Nobody needs to be unblocked if he wants to edit. He shouldn't be editing by proxy.  pablo hablo. 23:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense whatsoever. A retired Wikipedia user doesn't want to receive emails anymore when someone post on his talk page.  This isn't really Wikipedia editing, its just changing one minor thing on someone's personal talk page, to avoid being bothered.   D r e a m Focus  23:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * He replied to my email saying "I have scrambled my password for A Nobody. I thus cannot log back in and ever come back on that account."  He works exclusively at wikia now, doing a lot of work on the list wikia.  Anyway he doesn't want to get emails every time something is posted on his talk page.   D r e a m Focus  22:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A simple solution would be for him to email arbcom and ask one of them to do it. AniMate  03:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, given the borderline edit warring which has been flooding many watchlists,  I think this entire thing is beginning to encroach into WP:LAME territory. I think it is reprehensible how some have attempted to turn a good faith request made by A Nobody to Dream Focus via off-wiki email to blank his talk page and hopefully stop some of the bot nagging into an opportunity to attack A Nobody and others. I've added nobots to A Nobody's talk page  which will hopefully help stop the bot notices and put a stop to some of the ridiculous arguments that have been taking place. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"I have scrambled my password for A Nobody. I thus cannot log back in and ever come back on that account." If he receives emails when his talk page changes, he can request a new password by email as well, without having to log in. So he is perfectly able to use the A Nobody account any time he wants with minimal effort. Fram (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The horrible saga, first great injustice, Neon Genesis Evangelion Re-Take article destroyed

AfD nomination of Neon Genesis Evangelion RE-TAKE
An article that you have been involved in editing, Neon Genesis Evangelion RE-TAKE, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Neon Genesis Evangelion RE-TAKE. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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

policy change
I am sorry that you feel bad that Re-Take is getting deleted; while I personally think it a very bad series, then again, I think the same thing about "Angelic Days" but I am forced to grit my teeth and keep the article on it here: it's not a matter of that I want to push you around or quote rules to my benefit through loopholes (I hate it when people do that): but putting Re-Take here would violate many major rules. The problem is that its unlicensed and unofficial (and you can't really prove that it is "popular"; alright, one of my pet peeves about Re-Take is a think a few people are very hardcore fans about it, but that doesn't mean it has widespread popularity; this doesn't matter though). So if you really want to get it on, you can't just make an article for it: my suggestion would be that you have to bring up for policy debate, "can we include unlicensed fanfiction? and I...guess, that you'd start by going to the "Talk" page of "WikiProject Anime and Manga", and then raising the question there.  Look how many other editors on the "Delete" article want to delete it for these reasons; its not a matter of me pushing you, but really, the *current* rules won't allow it.  And if its something you really love, your best course would be to try to change the rules.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. I have just finished posting my suggested rule changes and a rational for them being necessary.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Suggest_policy_change.__Can_we_include_unlicensed_fanfiction.2Fdoujinshi.3F Dream Focus (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Main Page pics
§hep  •  Talk  02:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

participation in projects
You will not help the project by asking people to leave it. If nothing else, it's a sure way of getting them to dislike it and what it does. Yes, there is inefficiency and conflict from Wikipedia being an open project, but that it is an open project is still the most important positive thing about what we do here. DGG (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it help the project to have one editor constantly arguing with people and causing problems? More people are discouraged from joining or participating, seeing nothing but conflict filling up the project page, and so after a short time just ignoring it altogether.  And those who dislike the project, do so because their efforts to mindless destroy something they don't like, have failed at times because of the attention it brings to those articles.   D r e a m Focus  22:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "constantly arguing with people and causing problems" actually describes several editors' contributions at Ars talk. pablo hablo. 23:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments like … are you even in the Rescue Squadron? Stop messing with our FAQ" don't help the project either. pablo hablo. 09:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So letting someone edit the FAQ to change the meaning of one part to say the opposite, would be?  D r e a m Focus  09:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. I did not mention the edit, or your subsequent reversion, either favourably or otherwise. Your edit summary is what I was referring to, because that is where you made the comment which I quoted above. pablo hablo. 10:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Check the members list. You have someone who is not a member of the project, but is trying to change the FAQ, to say the very opposite of what it did before.  My edit summary is fine.   D r e a m Focus  10:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The project, like Wikipedia, is open. Any editor can edit any page. A name on a list simply means that some people like to put their names on lists. Others do not. "One doesn't get to be an article rescuer by signing a page in the project namespace. One gets to be an article rescuer by rescuing articles. Nothing more, nothing less." pablo hablo. 11:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Your record with deletion discussion is already compromised. DO NOT REMOVE THE MAINTENANCE TEMPLATE AGAIN.'' Logical Premise Ergo? 18:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone may remove the tag, if they disagree with the speedy deletion. My reason given in the edit summary clearly indicated why.  It is not vandalism.  That is not a maintenance template.  It is a deletion template.  Check the rules.   D r e a m Focus  01:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Venture Capital Investment Competition
Hi. It looks to me like User:Astronaut warned you on the talk page, as long ago as 24 April, that references were needed - yet you didn't include them in the article. I don't think you have anything to complain about - if you do, there's always the option of a deletion review. Deb (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't meet the requirements for a speedy delete. Send it to the AFD, and form a consensus.  The suggested guidelines say you need third party media coverage, but those are not policy, just suggestions on how to determine if something is notable.  It all comes down to consensus.  I don't think anyone doubts the subject is notable, if that many notable universities around the world participate in this event.   D r e a m Focus  19:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly the person who nominated it for speedy deletion did doubt that the subject is notable - as do I. Deb (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't delete something because you doubted it was notable. AFD exist for a reason.  Wikipedia doesn't just have Administrators roaming about, taking out things at a whim.  You must form proper consensus in an AFD.  The creator of the article believed it was notable, as do I, while you and the nominator do not.  You take it to the AFD, and discuss it there.  Speedy delete is only for certain things, this clearly not one of them.  Anyway, you can continue this here at the deletion review.  Plenty of newspaper coverage was quickly found by one editor.   D r e a m Focus  11:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Cake in a mug
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. pablo hablo. 20:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not the only editor who told you it wasn't necessary. I gave you a valid reason in the edit summary.  There is no possible reason why you'd need anything more for a food article than what you have now linked to.  Have you bothered to even look at other food articles?  D r e a m Focus  23:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Heads Up
Your edit history with DreamGuy are mentioned as part of the discussion at WP:ANI 68.146.162.11 (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where at exactly? Got a lot of things listed there, my name not seen anywhere.   D r e a m Focus  00:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Rape in the United States of America
I have nominated Rape in the United States of America, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Rape in the United States of America. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. When you recently edited Duck Dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A&E (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)