Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dream Focus (talk | contribs) at 21:20, 20 March 2009 (erasing the long bot information, that appeared long after it was all said and done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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/search/?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.

Am I allowed to mention my Game Making and electronic insanity forum?

Am I allowed to mention my Game Making and electronic insanity forum on my wikipedia page? Or would that be considered advertisement? http://s8.invisionfree.com/Game_Maker_forum/index.php?act=idx

Forum Comments

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

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

Berkeley Breathed

These edits need to be referenced. Please read Misplaced Pages:BLP WhisperToMe (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, the Re-Take AfD doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ending in anything but delete. (I will be shocked if it manages to be a merge, or even a redirect.) --Gwern (contribs) 20:56 12 October 2008 (GMT)

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

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

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

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

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

policy change

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

Thank you for your suggestion. I have just finished posting my suggested rule changes and a rational for them being necessary. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Suggest_policy_change.__Can_we_include_unlicensed_fanfiction.2Fdoujinshi.3F Dream Focus (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Chasing the Sunset

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Chasing the Sunset, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Chasing the Sunset is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Chasing the Sunset, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I messed up on that one. After www.trafficestimate.com failed to give me a reading for that webcomic's site, I went to alexa, and misread the information. I originally stated in the article it had 1.3 million hits in that time period, then erased it when I realized that number is the ranking, meaning there are 1.3 million sites more popular than it apparently, and it only has 800 to a thousand people at the most viewing on any given day. My mistake. If the articles and awards for it found on various sites I've reference aren't notable enough, then I won't bother objecting to its deletion. I really thought it had a lot more viewers than that when I created the wikipedia article about it. Dream Focus (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

voltron

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)

Arbcom Candidacy - Questions et al

Hey - I've formatted your discussion and question pages for the Arbcom Election. You might notice that the list of General Questions has also been posted to the Questions page; you'll want to answer those when you get a chance. Beyond that, please ping me with questions - and Good Luck! UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 00:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look into that now. Dream Focus (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Misplaced Pages Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?

2. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

3. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

4. How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?

5. What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?

6. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia policy about moving information to and then linking to wikis

http://en.wikipedia.org/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-Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

The "garbage" I moved into Total Annihilation: Kingdoms

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

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

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

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Xrifle1.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Xrifle1.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 12:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I added in the paperwork, so its fine now. I believe it meets all requirements, as do the rest. Dream Focus (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

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

Messages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfD nomination of List of Gantz equipment

I have nominated List of Gantz equipment, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Gantz equipment. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of legit media to determine notability

You've probably seen the comment already, but I accidentally posted it on your user page. I'm sorry if you found the action impolite. But if you'd like to know if something specific is a reliable source, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard could help. ~Itzjustdrama 05:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Naw, its fine. I was just hoping someone would make a list of every single news source in Japan, and elsewhere, which I could then check to see if something was notable or not. Manga doesn't get reviewed often in English news sources unfortunately, plus its hard to find the sales figures of anything. Dream Focus (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea. It's hard looking up notability for manga. There are some sites out there. Have you checked comipress.com or icv2.com? If the manga is licensed in English, I'm sure you can get something there. icv2 has a lot of sales figures if you need them. animenewsnetwork.com also has some good info, although you can't trust everything you see there. If all else fails, check around the good and featured articles. Sorry if I mentioned some you already checked. ~Itzjustdrama 05:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/13916.html only shows me sales figures month by month it seems, and its a rather confusing list. Did all of those big name comics sell so poorly that month? That is shocking. Comic book writers and artists usually just have one comic a month they put out. They couldn't pay their staff if their sales were that low. Dream Focus (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to find the lists confusing too. Although I guess the sales are so low because you have to count the comic's graphic novels too. The sales are also based on sales by Diamond US to comic stores. ~Itzjustdrama 20:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, one should keep in mind that while they are top manga titles, manga is still very much a niche reading market in North America, and that the economy as a whole is weak now, so people have cut back on purchases of "non-essentials" (not that I consider manga that LOL). Some interesting articles that may help both of you understand the numbers and seemingly low sales more: ICv2 Discussing the 2005 manga market, Projected 2009 releases down because of bad market, Publishers Weekly article on the close of Broccoli. The ICv2 guide would likely make some very interesting reading, but gotta pay for it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, you're so much more informed than I am. ~Itzjustdrama 21:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• http://comipress.com/ this has information showing sales of some series. Dream Focus (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• If anyone can read Japanese, this is the official website of the most influential magazine in the manga industry. http://jump.shueisha.co.jp/ It loads in Flash, so the Google translator can't touch it. Dream Focus (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Dream Focus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Main Page pics

§hep • 02:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Deletionists

Yeah yeah, everyone knows this. It won't help though. As I've said before, Misplaced Pages's community is controlled by some hardcore shut-in nerds with nothing better to do than circlejerk to their own shared ideal of a what an un-scholarly online encyclopedia website should be. The best thing to do is just leave, ignore it and let them make a sad attempt at turning this place into Encarta. I only come check back at this place because I'm some sort of masochist and/or I have a morbid curiosity to know just how pathetic and rigid people can be. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Akane-chan Overdrive

The debate for Akane-chan Overdrive was closed by MBisanz on 06 February 2009 with a consensus to merge. It says merge, it doesn't say redirect, which is all Farix did, he didn't merge a damn thing. He is working in contravention of a posted vote, to further his ends when he blanked the page before the vote. The vote says we don't have to merge everything, but he didn't do anything, and reverted my actual merger which was the stated outcome of the vote. Now this is a WP:POINT violation, done in WP:bad faith. Please have a look. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

They did that before. Merge is the same as delete for them, they just don't call it delete, thus perhaps getting votes from people that would otherwise say Keep. The only information that will be shown is what was already there, which is the name of the series. And the edit was done at 02:21, 6 February 2009, which is the same time as the end of the AFD, it saying to merge. It is rather arrogant of him to have to tried to skip the AFD process altogether, and do that on his own before hand. You were right to protest. You could contact those who voted for merge, and ask if what they would've voted for if they only had the choice of Keep or Delete, and see if that matters. If enough of them say they'd change their vote, then you can ask for the article to be reviewed, there a link to that at the end of the AFD discussion. Three of them I know will want it deleted anyway, since that's what they do all day, but the others I'm not sure about. And you might want to go to www.wikia.com and see if there is a wiki for everything featured in Jump, and if not you can create one. I'll help you with it if you want. Then in the writer's page, you are allowed to link to the wiki, and that'll provide people with information who want to know more about the series. Wikia is owned by wikipedia, but allows and encourages you to add in as much information as you want. Check out what I did with the Gantz wiki. http://gantz.wikia.com/Gantz_Wiki You can help people get the information they want, without worrying about any misguided people trying to delete things, because they believe they are somehow making the wikipedia better by eliminating articles people find useful and interesting. Dream Focus (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User page

You know, 'the wikipedia' doesn't own Wikia in any sense. --Gwern (contribs) 15:54 8 February 2009 (GMT)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikia Same guy who founded and runs wikipedia founded it, and profits from it. Dream Focus (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Other people have reverted your edits as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tom_Jenkins&diff=next&oldid=268332187 In fact, you have a history of bad edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:128.243.253.111#Final_warning And why not register a name instead of using the IP address? It will prevent you from being confused with others who might share the same IP address. Dream Focus (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's got nothing to do with the particular edit that was reverted. Yes, this is a shared IP address and a lot of the edits can be nonsense, but my edits should be evaluated on their individual constructiveness, not reverted on assumptions. --128.243.253.111 (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Colors in name text

Howdy; came here after reading your comment on Talk:Mason Remey mostly out of curiosity over who you be, and I noticed your 'Color text in names' section on your Userpage. I went through a similar search for info on that a while back, and thought I'd share what I discovered on it. In your preferences you can create a raw signature that is used every time you do the four tildes signature thingy. Go into your preference, check off raw signature and create one like this (look at the code by hitting Edit: DREAMFocus

BTW, thanks for contributing to the discussion; the page is sorely lacking impartial opinions. Have fun. _Disarray 03:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

	WELCOME	from a Article Rescue Squad member
	Welcome to Article Rescue Squadron Dream Focus, a dynamic list of articles needing to be rescued, which changes with new updates, can be found here: Articles tagged for deletion and rescue Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found I look forward to working with you in the future. Ikip (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Dream Focus, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject! We are a growing community of Misplaced Pages editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles and content that have been nominated for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable, and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles and content to quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

Some points that may be helpful:

• WikiProject Article rescue squadron's (ARS) main aim is to help improve Misplaced Pages articles and content. If someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification.
• Sometimes we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Sometimes editors who are new to Misplaced Pages may perceive the deletion of "their" article as discouraging. Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages.
• The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion.
• Our primary work is improving Misplaced Pages articles and content. A more dynamic list with article links and descriptions are located at our rescue list.
• If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves.
• Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again — Welcome! ~~~~

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

   * Reverting obvious vandalism ... adding or removing tags

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