User talk:Dreamsharer

Libyan War
You have recently inserted information to page List of modern conflicts in the Middle East about conflict - 2011- UN intervention in Libya during civil unrest, which is located in modern Libya. Please notice, that Libya is not located in the Middle East, according to following definition:
 * "Middle East" is traditionally defined as the Fertile Crescent and near surroundings from Egypt and Turkey in the West to Iran at the East.

I would herewith ask you to transfer this conflict to a more appropriate page named List of conflicts in the Maghreb (North Africa). Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan War and BBC geographical confusion (Dreamsharer's copy of Greyshark09 talk)
Hey, Greyshark09 and thank you for your feedback! Forgive my lack of correct technical Wiki coding here and elsewhere, as I am completely green to editing this lexicon - however not with basic html code.

Quote from Greyshark09 on Dreamsharer's talk: ''You have recently inserted information to page List of modern conflicts in the Middle East about conflict - 2011- UN intervention in Libya during civil unrest, which is located in modern Libya. Please notice, that Libya is not located in the Middle East, according to following definition: "Middle East" is traditionally defined as the Fertile Crescent and near surroundings from Egypt and Turkey in the West to Iran at the East.[1] I would herewith ask you to transfer this conflict to a more appropriate page named List of conflicts in the Maghreb (North Africa).'' Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been thinking about the exact same thing, Greyshark09, but there are many problems suddenly emerging. First of all, Libya is already mentioned at least two times in the same list of conflicts, as being connected with both the Egyptian-Libyan war of the 70s and the 'Middle East Protests' in 2010-2011. Even in newsmedia, the country is presented as connected with 'the Middle East'. The big question is: 'How far West is the East?'

Take the major broadcaster BBC as an example. BBC mentiones Libya as both part of the Middle East and of Africa.

BBC News - Middle East: Libya

BBC News - Africa: Libya

BBC actually redirects the reader from the Middle East category and the headline: 'Gaddafi vows 'long war' in Libya' to the African category for the actual story.

There is yet another problem. Since newsmedia such as BBC have used the term 'Middle East' for the larger 'Arab world' for a long time, we have a popular reference problem. People might not find the answers they are looking for. Maybe we have to refer to other places. I added the Libya conflict to the list because I, as a 'modern reader', automatically thought it to be in the Middle East. But as I said, I thought about it since, and until you wrote the feedback on my talk page, Greyshark09.

CNN solves the Libya geographical problem in another way by simply merging the Middle East and Africa categories into one mutual category.

Maybe we have to clarify in text and link to several pages to help people find what they are looking for. I know for sure I wouldn't look for 'Maghreb' if I was looking for info on Libya. Most people will most likely never know that is the correct term anyway. And also 'the Middle East' category, more than the 'North Africa' category, would be a natural place for me as a 'confused news reader' to start looking for quick info on this matter.

What is your suggestion?
 * Dreamsharer, please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. It is easier to communicate this way.
 * I think it should be simple - we should use scholar definition, not definition by news agency - who are not experts on geography. According to wikipedia, news are a good source for events, but should not be relied upon as "trusted sources" on professional issues (such as Physics, Chemistry, Geography, History), unless no other professional sources are available. News agencies sometimes use "Wide Middle East" concept (including North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan), which is very much artificial and rarely used in professional debate. Middle East is bound with the historic Fertile Crescent (Mesopotamia, Levant and Egypt) and immidiately neighbouring geographic areas (Cyprus, Anatolia, Iran and Arabia). Also do not confuse Middle East with Arab World, which is identified with Arab League, whereas Middle Eastern countries Turkey, Iran, Cyprus and Israel are not part of it. I have provided you the source for proper definition of Middle East by scholar, though of course other opinions exist in academy.
 * Libya is already listed in List of modern conflicts in the Middle East, because Libyan-Egyptian war was on the border of Egypt, which is certainly part of the Middle East (by classic definition). Wars on the borders of Middle East certainly should be included, such as Turkish War of Independence, which was fought against Armenia and Greece.
 * As you have mentioned, someone did recently put 2011 Protests in the list - a problematic issue, since these protests have spread beyond Middle East, and even beyond North Africa. We have a similar situation with World Wars - an issue solved by describing "Middle Eastern theatre of World War ...". It is one possible solution here - to subdivide 2011 protests to Middle Eastern, North African, and East African. However, in my opinion it is better to mention local event for each country, as the conflict background is very different for each location, even though they are called altogether "2011 protests".
 * Therefore, in my opinion, only "2011 Egyptian Revolution" is relevant to the list as Middle Eastern conflict with more than 100 casualties (inter-Egyptian politic struggle), whereas Yemen (Sunni-Shia and internal politic tensions) and Bahrain (Sunni-Shia conflict) might join the list in the future. North African events in Tunisia and Libya are very much redundant to the list, as much as Sudan and other African countries.
 * Regarding clarification to reader - i think you are right! We should change "Maghreb" to "North Africa" (meaning instead of "List of conflicts in the Maghreb" it should be "List of modern conflicts in North Africa"), since it is a much more familiar concept. Would you like to do it yourself according to WP:SNOWBALL policy, or i shall do it?Greyshark09 (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi again, Greyshark09! Dreamsharer talking. Snowball or not, hehe, I prefer you do such changes if you would be so kind. You definetly got more know-how than me to do so. But how about 'North Africa / Maghreb' or North Africa (main category) + Maghreb (sub-category)? It would be a shame to lose the term completely, fighting to maintain a high lexicon standard, here...?


 * See this new debate I posted on Wikifan12345's talk page - the author of the original list of modern conflicts in the Middle East.


 * Also, thanks to you and/or the Wiki system for the signature tip! :-) Dreamsharer (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dreamsharer, you should not worry about loosing the term, since after the rename, the older title List of conflicts in the Maghreb would redirect to List of modern conflicts in North Africa. In addition, i would add it to the WP:LEAD. Regarding your discussion with Wikifun12345 - me and him have maintained a full understanding regarding definition of Middle East until now, but you are welcome to ask his opinion.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Greyshark09, I think you're right about the 'modern conflict' - concept being more familiar. I think the newest change does good to the total picture and makes it all become more cohesive. Keep up the good work! :-)


 * I deleted Libya from Wikifan's Middle East list for now. I'm not quite satisfied with the popular culture definition. And it is quite possible to find the info in the North African category, if one uses one's imaginastion - a little bit and/or if spesific suggestions & links are made, somehow.


 * Moreover, I renamed the reference in the 'See also' section of Wikifan's list to 'List of modern conflics in North Africa' and added a free text '(the Maghreb region)' behind the reference. (See also: List of modern conflics in North Africa (the Maghreb region).)


 * One more thing about the cohesiveness. I've always liked those Wikifan-style-tables for such info, with flags, numbers and all of that, orderly fashioned in rows and columns. At least as short, 'punch-line'-type extra info to break up longer texts. Those endless lists of text, that in fact are informative, don't appear to be so informative, ironically, because they are not as visual. Or 'short-glimpsed'. You probably get my point... I see this phenomenon in the African conflicts list even more than in the North Africa / Maghreb list, since the African list contains very much more info that, sadly, make it confusing. I wonder if the table style would do the reader good, in both of the webpage lists, from a visual design point of view.


 * Dreamsharer (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, the text-rich format in lists is confusing, and actually undermines the entire list purpose. If you like you can begin to transform the List of modern conflicts in North Africa into another visual list, with much more data and less text. I can assist you on this, since i have already thought of doing it. Such visual list would bring a great deal of order for people who use wikipedia. By the way you can notice the current list is very short, and this is not because North Africa is a peaceful place, but rather lack of inserted information. Doing some research from trusted sources on modern history of North Africa would add a lot of conflicts there.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Check out the test list at List of modern conflicts in North Africa. See how much more agreeable it is with the eye. ;-) I guess that the easy stuff is to copy, edit and paste the code - and that the hard stuff is tracking down all the various info and references... Dreamsharer (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * PS. I just found out 'the Maghreb region' is a quite narrow term. It seems Maghreb comprises only 5-6 countries. Maybe we should rethink our approach to this matter... but how? Mixing it now confuses me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maghreb: Maghreb is an Arabic word which means "place of sunset" derived from Gharb "the West".[3] Following North Africa and Hispania, the term included Andalusia, Sicily, and Malta. Before the establishment of modern nation states in the region in the 20th century, Maghreb referred to a smaller area between the Atlas Mountains range in the south and the Mediterranean Sea, eastern Libya, but not modern Mauritania. As recently as late 19th century it was used to refer to Western Mediterranean region in general, and Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia in particular.[4] In modern history Maghreb refers to the five North African countries of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Mauritania, plus the disputed territory of Western Sahara. Dreamsharer (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:The-Guild-3-Team-GolemLabs-THQNordic-.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:The-Guild-3-Team-GolemLabs-THQNordic-.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Neutral POV
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Original research
Hi Dreamsharer,

Judging by your edits, I assume you're a fairly new editor. Have you checked the guidelines? I saw the article that you created, game quality. Someone has PROD'ed the article for deletion. While I could see the benefit of an article on the subject, it needs reliable sources. What doesn't help, is adding original research. A definition found in an online dictionary doesn't help. Also, Wikipedia can never be the source for its own articles.

Your edit summary seems odd to me: "Wikipedia really needs to expand its gaming & business (and gaming business + industry) vocabulary. This is like browsing in some '60s bookshelf", as there thousands upon thousands of up-to-date articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

TO THIS AND OTHER FEEDBACKS REGARDING
Hi & thanks.

See this?

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GolemLabs

Talk:GolemLabs From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia WikiProject icon Video games portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. NOTE. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Start 	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. Low 	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. [show] Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · history · talk · purge · article alerts · newsletter Articles for deletion	This page was nominated for deletion on April 20 2009. The result of the discussion was delete. Categories: Start-Class video game articlesLow-importance video game articlesWikiProject Video games articles

I read that discussion. And you (all) know what? It disgusted me. This is what really doesn't help: Deletion based on ignorance.

I'm glad you (and more) could see the benefit of an article on the subject.

From Clue digital dictionary 8.2, Eng-Eng (which I am not gonna quote any better):

encyclopedia n. (also spelt encyclopaedia.) An encyclopedia is a book or set of books in which many facts are arranged for reference usually in alphabetical order F.ex: The material is laid out, as in an encyclopedia, for easy reference encyclopedic adj. (also spelt encyclopaedic.) Something that is encyclopedic is very full, complete, and thorough in the amount of knowledge or information that it has. F.ex: She knew her subject with encyclopedic thoroughness.... David Caute's book is wide-ranging without being encyclopaedic

dictionary n. 1. A dictionary is a book which lists the words of a language in alphabetical order and explains their meanings F.ex: ...a new edition of the dictionary 2. A dictionary is also a book in which words in one language are listed alphabetically, together with words which have the same meaning in another language F.ex: ...an English-French dictionary

There is a fine line between a dictionary and a encyclopedia, as encyclopedias elaborate on a subject - even with scientific articles - longer than the etymological field would do. It does not mutually exclude such as, but not limited to; a definition, which in fact could be very useful in this sense! (Insert template old teacher voice here.) That would help to narrow down the breath and with of an elaboration.

I strongly disagree on the folloing claim: "A definition found in an online dictionary doesn't help." Indeed, a writer, an encyclopedia must both know, and show; what the basis is, even for further elaboration. All encyclopedic content must be based on the right presumtions, or else the elaboration may go awry.

NOTE: (...) to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia.

This is self-explanatory. There is no need for improving something that is perfect. Coverage is a measure to define how much of a given mass is covered, filled with, say, information, as the sea floor is covered with water - or on the other hand, a sea, or river, runs dry.

There might be both trickling and water here, but there is room for improvement that is not very small.

Wikipedia is not alone in not covering news that is not labeled AAA top rated block busters by foregone conclusions and collective and/or guru assumptions. But an encyclopedia is for all, not just for the big business that even here get prioritized according to the projects' "importance scale" as the template's authors so fittingly write.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort. I'm just a messenger, and I won't be here for long. I just pop in if I find the drought in tributaries extra severe, indeed unbearable. And I've read entrenching argumentation before, and know this: If I, and a thousand others can't find information on Wikipedia, Wikipedia down NOT win, and so does no-one else, it is a general loss. Vice versa, motivated people contributing to the general enlightenment is a win-win situation. But generally, newbies are bitten, and little respect is shown by sadly the great majority of sirius veterans. People are mainly just popping in to either "cull"; and you mention prod, "delete" and in the next line comes the "hotcat"-ing and the "refill"-ing. I appreciate constructive efforts. Grammar, links, cite webs, all good. All well and done and collaborative. But I deplore destroying what-of-a-work that is not hopeless with a few hasty letters, only because someone "feels" it should be shorter, or better, or less useless (or more useful, depending on a given person's half-empty, half-full worldview, at large, or in a community). Take a look at Obsidian Entertainment. Look at the first edition of Golem Labs. Compare. The article was not perfect, but there is no reason why a deemed-smaller developMENT COMPANIES !!! (they even call themselves "develOPER" at Gamescom https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge9HAHGQl3k - guess RL is not always correct, huh!) should get LESS coverage simply because random people in 2009 thought them dead and buried! There is no logic, formal, historic, defendable reason for wiping defunct companies from the encyclopedia for that reason. A bad article might be, a short promo, biased, POV, slacky, WP:WHATEVER, WP: (WP:isAbrickCainusedTokillAble, WP:TheLawKills - Romani Ite Domum (Romanus Eunt Domus :p)), but this reasoning in the debate was supported by that - yeah, they're prob gone anyway... so... - kinda thought. Many encyclopedias IN FACT contain things that are OLDER than the current year (and not just the '40s-60s haha :p)! - surprisingly - not living in a historical vacuum. People have little or no respect for years and years of nosegrinding labor, like Runeforge did with that game no-one but some fan group ared about, until they were broke! I'm hardly a part of that group at all, being an outer-softer-core private (no way gaming-corporate-linked), but NOSTALGIC person but I've SEEN the ups and downs of several decades myself - that is NOT something I can refer to, without publishing the fans' viewpoint in a 1337: A SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE ON THE EXHAUSTIVE RESEARCH INTO THE ANTROPOLOGICAL AND SOCIALANTHROPOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL wannabe-s, geeks and (primordial) computers of the 12th century. Before the dark WP:ages, before the black digital death.) See the revisions for Heinrich Meyer. It's the same writer doing the useless and the useful article. If it's not been deleted for someone's felt bias or whatever. As if any referred human is infallible, a perfectly isolated DNA of some totally objective, dry scholarly line, carefully nurtured prototype for the perfect scholar. And people like Lars Wingefors - people who would be willing to go for a $50k and not $50mill project (x many)? Giving the smaller industries, the niches a chance? Not a single hit on Wikipedia and loads of sites. Then try looking at the "preferred" categories, the cynical money machines "people love to hate, it's concidered hip" (and I'm not gonna refer to any zillionth forum/blog/newsarticle I've read) by a large amount of people OUTSIDE Wikipedia's walls. There Is (Real) Life Out There, no? Look at "EA" and "the MASSIVE disappointments" people have been complaining about. I am not one of the complainers, and that is my personal reflection after doing the games myself. That said, google search: "bioware montreal shut down", currently: "Ca. 44 200 results". I'm not gonna start a "wikia" for these topics where some hardcore people go. I don't care for hardcore who knows things better than most people anyway, long before the rest! I care for the most droughtish mainstream straggeling enlightenment in these matters to simply TELL what they are about, to shine some light upon some possibly never-studied corner BECAUSE I THINK THEY DESERVE IT. The developers deserve it, the publisher deserve it, many RL people's RL ancestors deserve it (The Guild games tell about the roots of RL Reformational Europe, think Protestant Germany &/or England vs Catholic France &/or Spain for centuries... many had RL ancestors in TG line of trade, RL), the players deserve it: The world deserves it. Readers of Wikipedia deserve it. I don't do this for some vultures or some pecking order. I try to work with those who show themselves willing to cooperate. It's give and take. Give and take! The style, knowledge, input, referrals...: All techincalities, all dynamic, all changeable, learnable. That's not the point and it does not motivate me AT ALL. Wikipedia can't just be a place for bores, naturally dried-up ivory tower dwellers, Cambridge & Oxford people with Tolkien or Keynes (or wannabe) status in their fields. Other kinds of people could HELP anyway, people that don't CARE for Academia, technicalities and - I - AM CERTAINLY NOT THE WORST. And if everything has to be perfect at every place, every time, every single quotation and notation that some gifted tech-people can HOTCAT and REFILL in a tenth, if not a millionth of the time, using POWERFUL TOOLS - I plot it in manually because all the Talk: Revision and whatnot, I see with tech-eyes through the hopelessly presented black-on-white messy code in the Wikipedia edit window (that give some other computer veterans I showed it to "HEADACHE just LOOKING AT IT"), just a single citeweb takes like 4 lines, four lines before --citeweb messy code title year access avoid link rot personal preferrance latin examplary text etc.-- the text goes on and y'know, I don't have time nor now the patience for this - THEN LEARNING IS NEVER FACILITATED, you know what they do, people; - they just leave. Just leave. That is a MASSIVE WASTE of POTENTIAL. Whatever happened to colaborative effort I wonder. I wonder! What motivates me, is telling a story. After an Admin WP:SnowballChanceInHellPoliecied me for a long, descriptive article about a game a couple of years ago, revised it to some default edit and just threw everything in the mud. I stopped personally donating to the Wikimedia Foundation. I vote with my wallet. Re-convincing me would need a lot harder effort.


 * You okay there, buddy? soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GolemLabs-1-old(er)-facebook logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:GolemLabs-1-old(er)-facebook logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)