User talk:Nightscream

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my Talk Page. If you're new to Wikipedia, you can leave me a message about a new topic by placing it at the bottom of this talk page, under a new heading with a title that refers to the article or topic in question. To create a header, just put two sets of equals signs on each side of the section's title. Please sign your message by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the message, which also automatically time stamps them. Thanks. :-)

Pffffft.gif

Contents

Happy New Year, Nightscream[edit]

BLP:Primary listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect BLP:Primary. Since you had some involvement with the BLP:Primary redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg (chat) 12:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Spider-Man enemies[edit]

I am inviting you to copy edit and put on your watchlist my sandbox with all the information regarding Spider-Man enemies. It should soon replace this and turn a plot cruft filled article into a featured list article worthy list sometime maybe in the next future. Jhenderson 777 01:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration[edit]

The drafting arbitrator of the Nightscream case has placed elements of the proposed decision on the workshop page. Your comments are welcome. --Rschen7754 19:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

A proposed decision has been posted at the above page for the Nightscream arbitration case, and arbitrators will now vote on the proposals. Comments can be left on the talk page. --Rschen7754 10:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Nightscream has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

For repeatedly violating the policy on administrator involvement, Nightscream's administrative privileges are revoked. Should he wish to regain administrator status in the future, he may file a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Discuss this
Per the request of Arbcom, I've removed administrator rights from this account. Writ Keeper  03:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to see you get De-Sysop'ed. Hope you get the bit back soon!  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Ditto. I'd support any new adminship request you put in. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Nightcrawler[edit]

Actually - not that it matters - I reverted one set of unsourced text to the previous batch of unsourced text, and didn't actually add anything to it. I guess you removing it was the right thing to do though. Thanks for looking out for things here! I try to do my best. One problem I am having is watching the edits of Crashsnake - he does not seem to work well with others. 2601:D:9400:3CD:15F:1C77:7604:9A47 (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Self-published sources (online and paper) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Self-published sources (online and paper). Since you had some involvement with the Self-published sources (online and paper) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg (chat) 01:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

MOS:USERGENERATED listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MOS:USERGENERATED. Since you had some involvement with the MOS:USERGENERATED redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg (chat) 01:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

MOSS:SECTION HEAD listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MOSS:SECTION HEAD. Since you had some involvement with the MOSS:SECTION HEAD redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg (chat) 01:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Terms should only be wikilinked once listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Terms should only be wikilinked once. Since you had some involvement with the Terms should only be wikilinked once redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg (chat) 02:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary for Joseph Swan edit[edit]

Greetings, and thanks for your improvements to various articles on my watchlist. I am curious about one thing; why did you use the edit summary "ce," which is typically for "copyedit," when you made editorial changes which went beyond basic grammar, punctuation, spelling and fixing of awkward spelling? In this edit you changed "Edison collaboration" to "Independent from Edison" and labelled it as "ce." This seems more substantial than a "copy edit,". and it would be helpful if the edit summary gave a clearer description of how the article was changed. If an editor whose name I recognize, such as yours, copyedits an article I usually do not find it necessary to check what they've done, but if it is a substantial change, I might want to take a look. In this case I think the edit is fine, but when the heading of a section is changed to practically the opposite meaning, I would like to have a heads up. Regards. Edison (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edit was probably more accurate than the old heading, but it was a significant change. Technically, correcting inaccuracies can indeed be called copyediting, but I tend to use ce for grammar and spelling, or correction of redundant or awkward phrasing. "Change x to y" rather than "ce" would have alerted anyone who might have cared or disagreed. I do not disagree with the change in this case, but I'm more likely to view the actual edit if the summary says more than ce when a generally trusted editor is doing the edit. Keep up the good work. Edison (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hoboken, New Jersey[edit]

Hi, thank you for informing me of more of the accepted usages on Wikipedia. I will have to look further at the issues surrounding "claim" to ensure that I am not violating that. I also should have cited this article at MSNBC http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/mayor-christie-camp-held-sandy-money-hostage Since the Lieutenant Governor denied the allegation today, and therefore Zimmer's charge is not accepted, I will have to see whether or not the word "claim" is inappropriate. Frank Lynch (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of Emporis for Kızılay Emek Business Center[edit]

Hi Nightscream, we briefly crossed paths over a year ago on the George Lazenby page. I'm not sure what to do. Kızılay Emek Business Center was recently edited to add a mention that the building was inspired by the UN Secretariat building. I reverted this edit because it didn't ping to a google search and was unsourced. The IP user who made the change reverted a couple of times and then came up with a source. Emporis.com

From previous experience with Emporis, their website is a data mine and regularly holds inaccuracies. I tagged the source with [unreliable source?] and asked on the talk page if anyone could shed some light on it. This one editer has reverted and looked like it was going to go repeatedly back and forth. How do I get a reliable answer to whether emporis is [unreliable source?] or not?

I just find it odd that google didn't pick up the claim at all outside that site. SPACKlick (talk) 12:32, January 22, 2014

Saturday: NYC Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon[edit]

Jefferson Market Public Library
Please join Wikipedia "Art and Feminism Editathon" @ Eyebeam on Saturday February 1, 2014,
an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists!

There are also regional events that day in Brooklyn, Westchester County, and the Hudson Valley.
--Pharos (talk)

Buzzard Roost, Mississippi[edit]

Hi there. You gave me some good advice a while back so I thought I'd ask you again. I've been editing a lot of towns in Mississippi, and came across "Buzzard Roost, Mississippi". It's listed as an unincorporated community, but has no GNIS entry and doesn't appear on a topographic map. It seems to be more a "place" locals call Buzzard Roost, because there's a store by that name on the corner. The reason I think the article needs editing is because it appears in a lot of literature as "that town in Mississippi with the funny name." But it really isn't, so the article is misleading. I'm just not sure how to edit it. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Union City High School[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Union City High School you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ТимофейЛееСуда -- ТимофейЛееСуда (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

My edit at The Lego Movie[edit]

Hi, Night. I respect your work immensely, and I wanted to explain, good colleague to good colleague, why I made the edit i did just now. As I wrote in the edit summary: "Normally, I wouldn't revert a good-faith edit by my longtime and very responsible colleague Nightscream. This one, I know inadvertently, took the plot to way over 700 words." I hope you understand and that we're cool. With regards as always, Tenebrae (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely, and I'd hoped and figured you'd be understanding. You're one of the best editors here, Night, and a treasured friend and colleague. God knows you do great work.
My fear with going over 700 words is that once fans see one movie getting away with it, everyone wants to write everything they can about movies they like ... Lordy, especially on genre and comics movies. I'm proud to have worked constructively with other editors — sometimes literally on a word-by-word basis! — to get Titanic, Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol and Skyfall all within 700 words of tightly told plots. One trick I've found that helps is changing passive voice to active voice: "The car driven by Bond went off the road" > "Bond drove the car off the road" ... saves two words, reads better. Or in The Lego Movie someone had the phrase "powerful superweapon." Well, what kind of superweapon would it be if it weren't powerful?   : )     --Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Union City High School[edit]

The article Union City High School you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Union City High School for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ТимофейЛееСуда -- ТимофейЛееСуда (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw, but I posted my final three points, then I'm happy to pass the article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The article Union City High School you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Union City High School for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ТимофейЛееСуда -- ТимофейЛееСуда (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Chumlee[edit]

The section I removed in the article 'Chumlee', regarding his income level, is wholly unsupported by the citation. As explained in the talk page for Chumlee, his derived income level is formed from an assumption made by the author based on hyperbole in a Chumlee interview question.

“She wanted a boob job and she was going to pay it herself but she works so hard. She’s a chef for a major casino. I thought to myself, it literally takes me a couple hours of work to buy a boob job so why would I make her pay for them. She had her money saved up and I just felt it was the right thing to do. That’s a good birthday present, right?” - Chumlee

"That admission, folks, might be as close you’ll get to Chum talking about how much he’s getting paid: If he’s making $2,500 an hour for the show and the merchandise and public appearances, he’d be pulling in $100,000 a week." - Author BipolarBear0 (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon[edit]

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon
ArtAndFeminismNYC-Generations.jpg

You are invited to join upcoming Wikipedia "Editathons", where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on a selected theme, on the following two Saturdays in March:

I hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Actor's biographies - is IMDB an accepted source?[edit]

Hi! Thanks for getting back to me and explaining why some of my edits were reverted on Brent Spiner instead of just reverting them. I wonder if the bio page at IMDB would be an acceptable source in this case? Googaah (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Coral Smith[edit]

Coral Smith So what do you suggest for reporting the information? Golufemi1 (talk) 18:53, February 22, 2014

Changes to citation format at Hoboken High School[edit]

The net effect of your recent edit to the article for Hoboken High School is largely to change citation formats in the article. Per WP:CITEVAR, such changes are discouraged and should only be undertaken based on reaching a consensus to make the change based on prior discussion, rather than arbitrarily changing the prevailing format. Before I revert to the prior citation standard, can you explain why these changes were made in contradiction to the guidelines established by community consensus at WP:CITEVAR? Alansohn (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm actually a bit more agnostic about reference formatting than it may appear, I just don't see that the format that I've been using for years is wrong. I look forward to being convinced otherwise, but until then it appears that CITEVAR supports just leaving things as they are. All I request is that the references be left as they had been before the other editor started adding content. Alansohn (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
That approach sounds appropriate. Alansohn (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Al Plastino[edit]

This is a neutral notice to a WikiProject Comics member of a discussion at Talk:Al Plastino and an edit-war over fringe science and family/friend editing of Al Plastino. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Peter J. Ganci, Jr.[edit]

Please forgive this post if this is the wrong place to contact you at but I have just about given up in figuring out Wikipedia and the alteration of history in Chief of FDNY Peter Ganci's page with a gross error on it.

Your corrections and the placement of indents and arrows was not helpful as I am totally unfamiliar with the nuances of Wiki. please forgive a neophyte.

I have been trying to enter the information on Chief of FDNY Peter Ganci's page that his body was found at WTC on 9/11/01

I was there as well as the people (Fire officers) cited and in videos posted with our update. I am not a PHD in wikipedia but have no idea who would change history of this event. I do not know how to and it is not a major player in my life. I was just trying to edit an article that was grossly wrong and hurting to the family of Chief Ganci. His body was recovered and buried. The info I posted was :

The above information on not finding remains is incorrect:

Chief Ganci's remains were found early afternoon 9/11/01by NYC FDNY Lt Jon Paul Augier and Firefighter Thomas J. (TJ) Mundy after being alerted by NYC Parks SAR K9 Bear 
Ref Dennis Smith - Report From Ground Zero ISBN 0-670-03116-X Pg 11-113   Ref Animal Planet - Dr Jane Goodall  Animal Planet: 'When Animals Speak' BBC Air date Sept 16 2005: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rgBuZdNgNM Ref Princeton House Publishing - 'Bear' (the Story of America's Most Decorated Rescue Dog) Pg. 71-73 ISBN 978-160530-085-6 

Nightscream can you be of assistance in getting this corrected? There are enough real cover-ups of 9/11 without this hurtful misinforamtion on your site. Feel free to contact at safety1ff@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.145.40 (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Rachel Campos-Duffy, Sean Duffy[edit]

Rachel and Sean were on The View. They said their marriage date. Additionally it is on the internet. I am restoring my edit. 172.243.183.183 (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Information.svg Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edits to Rachel Campos-Duffy and Sean Duffy, as we really appreciate your participation. However, portions of the edits had to be reverted, such as the Duffys date of marriage, because Wikipedia cannot accept uncited material or original research. This includes material lacking cited sources, material obtained through personal knowledge, or which constitutes the an analysis or interpretation by the editor that is not found in cited sources. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here.

Also, more minor points, for future reference:

  • Terms should not be wikilinked more than once in the article body, as indicated by WP:OVERLINK, and the The View is already wikilinked in a passage prior to the one you added.
  • Numbers 0-9, including cardinal numbers ("six") and ordinal numbers ("seventh") are written as words, per WP:NUMERAL.
  • Punctuation goes before citations, not after, per WP:PAIC. Your movement of periods from before citations to after them was not in keeping with this guideline.
  • When discussing past events, the such as the Duffys' 2013 move, and their motives for doing so, the word could is the appropriate word to use, and not can ("In 2013 they moved to Wausau, Wisconsin so that Sean could be closer...") The word can would be appropriate if a discussing a current or immediately recent event, but keep in mind that material in encyclopedias is written in a non-dated manner, per WP:DATED.
  • The subject of a biographical article should generally be referred to by their surname, and not their give name, per WP:SURNAME.

If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all, do not blank messages from this talk page. This is not your personal talk page, it is the talk page for this IP, and as such, it will retain an accurate record of all valid messages on it for transparency's sake. In addition, editors are required to discuss edits on which they disagree. This cannot be done when one blanks entire talk pages. If you wish a talk page that you can blank, then please sign up for a free username account.
Regarding your reverts ([1][2]), it appears that you did not carefully read my earlier message above. For material to be "sourced", it means that it is supported by an inline citation of a reliable source at the end of the passage in which that information appears. The material you added is not supported by any such citations. For example, the information on Campos' childhood does not include a citation at the end of it, and you added the information on Campos' parents' names, ethnicities and her brother's name in the middle of passages that do have citations, but those citations (two episode of The Real World) do not contain that information. You mentioned on my talk page that this was stated on an episode of The View and that "Additionally it is on the internet." It does not matter if it is on the Internet. Material is not sourced if it is on the Internet, or found in a source like an episode of a TV show. On Wikipedia, "sourcing" refers to the practice of citing the source in the article. This is why I linked you above to WP:INCITE. If this information is found in reliable sources on the Internet or in a TV episode, then please cite those sources in the article. If you have trouble doing this, point me to the sources, and I will gladly restore that material and compose the citations for you.
In addition to this, it appears that you did not merely restore the information you thought was valid, but reverted all of my edits, including the clearly beneficial ones that do not pertain to the issue of sourcing, even though I mentioned the rationale and related policies and guidelines for most of these edits above, and you have not provided any rationale for reverting them. For example:
  • You reverted the wiklink on The View at the bottom of Campos' Personal life section, even though, as I explained above, WP:OVERLINK make it clear we should not wikilink terms more than once in the article body text.
  • You made that link a piped link, but did not include the text on the right side of the pipe divider, which results in that link being displayed as The View (U.S. TV series) instead of The View.
  • You reverted the words "six" and "seventh" to the numerals for those numbers, even though I pointed out above that WP:NUMERAL states that whole number integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words.
  • You again moved punctuation to after citations where they were previously and properly placed before them, per WP:PAIC, even tough I pointed out that guideline to you above.
  • You reverted some wording that I pointed out above was grammatically incorrect.
  • You removed the publication information that I had added to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel citation. Why did you do this?
I can understand if you are not clear on how to make piped links because you're new to Wikipedia, but the fact that you did a blanket revert on all of these edits, without reading or responding to the specific policies and guidelines I pointed as rationales for them above, and then blanked my messages, may come across to the rest of the editing community here as disruptive editing, and may appear that you do not care to adhere to site's policies and guidelines, or to edit collaboratively with others or communicate with them. This behavior could result in this IP being blocked from editing. Please do not make that necessary. If you don't believe that my messages accurately represent the properly adherence to the site's rules, or reflect the editing community, we can began a discussion on the article's talk page, and invite other editors to join it to offer their thoughts. But doing blanket reverts and blanking this talk page is not a good way to get started on your editing here. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines I have linked to here, and feel free to ask me any question you might have. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. When you begin with 'first of all' it it rude. You set a negative tone.
Secondly, telling me 'you did not carefully read' is again rude. Dont EVER post to me in a rude manner. That is why I deleted all your post. I see you are trying to call it disruptive editing, but it is not. Wow, so you are the spokesperson for the whole editing community? GTFOOH with that BS. And YOU did a revert of my edit, why can't i do it to you ?
Wow, you are really writing me about piping. Wow. Well then you need to go through wiki because I see alot of The View (U.S. TV series) instead of The View. Wow.
Third, I am allowed to delete your comments from my page because I dont want your negativity on my page. Check the rules.
Fourth, if you are talking about overlinking,why did you do it on my page? Lastly, I am restoring my edits. Where were you 2 days, 3days, 4 days ago to better the article? I take an interest and now all of a sudden you are all over it. Whatever. Why didnt YOU post on the discussion page before you just did a huge revert? Practice what you preach. 172.243.183.183 (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all, do not blank messages from this talk page. This is not your personal talk page, it is the talk page for this IP, and as such, it will retain an accurate record of all valid messages on it for transparency's sake. In addition, editors are required to discuss edits on which they disagree. This cannot be done when one blanks entire talk pages. If you wish a talk page that you can blank, then please sign up for a free username account.
Regarding your reverts ([3][4]), it appears that you did not carefully read my earlier message above. For material to be "sourced", it means that it is supported by an inline citation of a reliable source at the end of the passage in which that information appears. The material you added is not supported by any such citations. For example, the information on Campos' childhood does not include a citation at the end of it, and you added the information on Campos' parents' names, ethnicities and her brother's name in the middle of passages that do have citations, but those citations (two episode of The Real World) do not contain that information. You mentioned on my talk page that this was stated on an episode of The View and that "Additionally it is on the internet." It does not matter if it is on the Internet. Material is not sourced if it is on the Internet, or found in a source like an episode of a TV show. On Wikipedia, "sourcing" refers to the practice of citing the source in the article. This is why I linked you above to WP:INCITE. If this information is found in reliable sources on the Internet or in a TV episode, then please cite those sources in the article. If you have trouble doing this, point me to the sources, and I will gladly restore that material and compose the citations for you.
In addition to this, it appears that you did not merely restore the information you thought was valid, but reverted all of my edits, including the clearly beneficial ones that do not pertain to the issue of sourcing, even though I mentioned the rationale and related policies and guidelines for most of these edits above, and you have not provided any rationale for reverting them. For example:
  • You reverted the wiklink on The View at the bottom of Campos' Personal life section, even though, as I explained above, WP:OVERLINK make it clear we should not wikilink terms more than once in the article body text.
  • You made that link a piped link, but did not include the text on the right side of the pipe divider, which results in that link being displayed as The View (U.S. TV series) instead of The View.
  • You reverted the words "six" and "seventh" to the numerals for those numbers, even though I pointed out above that WP:NUMERAL states that whole number integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words.
  • You again moved punctuation to after citations where they were previously and properly placed before them, per WP:PAIC, even tough I pointed out that guideline to you above.
  • You reverted some wording that I pointed out above was grammatically incorrect.
  • You removed the publication information that I had added to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel citation. Why did you do this?
I can understand if you are not clear on how to make piped links because you're new to Wikipedia, but the fact that you did a blanket revert on all of these edits, without reading or responding to the specific policies and guidelines I pointed as rationales for them above, and then blanked my messages, may come across to the rest of the editing community here as disruptive editing, and may appear that you do not care to adhere to site's policies and guidelines, or to edit collaboratively with others or communicate with them. This behavior could result in this IP being blocked from editing. Please do not make that necessary. If you don't believe that my messages accurately represent the properly adherence to the site's rules, or reflect the editing community, we can began a discussion on the article's talk page, and invite other editors to join it to offer their thoughts. But doing blanket reverts and blanking this talk page is not a good way to get started on your editing here. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines I have linked to here, and feel free to ask me any question you might have. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. When you begin with 'first of all' it it rude. You set a negative tone.
Secondly, telling me 'you did not carefully read' is again rude. Dont EVER post to me in a rude manner. That is why I deleted all your post. I see you are trying to call it disruptive editing, but it is not. Wow, so you are the spokesperson for the whole editing community? GTFOOH with that BS. And YOU did a revert of my edit, why can't i do it to you ?
Wow, you are really writing me about piping. Wow. Well then you need to go through wiki because I see alot of The View (U.S. TV series) instead of The View. Wow.
Third, I am allowed to delete your comments from my page because I dont want your negativity on my page. Check the rules.
Fourth, if you are talking about overlinking,why did you do it on my page? Lastly, I am restoring my edits. Where were you 2 days, 3days, 4 days ago to better the article? I take an interest and now all of a sudden you are all over it. Whatever. Why didnt YOU post on the discussion page before you just did a huge revert? Practice what you preach. 172.243.183.183 (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing rude or impolite about the phrase "first of all". That is merely a phrase that is used beginning the first of multiple points in a statement, nothing more. As for your other points, I will respond to them individually:
Secondly, telling me 'you did not carefully read' is again rude.
It is not rude if your behavior seems to indicate it, and if alternate explanations by you are not forthcoming. I pointed out the various policies and guidelines that your edits violated, and rather than offer a counterargument or explanation that falsified this, you simply reverted them repeatedly, and in blanket fashion, without any indication on your part that you read, understand, or even care about this site's rules. This gives the appearance that you do not care about those rules, and may be under the impression that you will be allowed to do whatever you want here, as if Wikipedia is your own personal sandbox. Thus, that speculation was reasonable. If this is wrong, then explain how your edits did not violate the policies and guidelines in question.
I see you are trying to call it disruptive editing, but it is not.
I am not "trying to call" it disruptive editing, the Wikipedia editing community does, and according to WP:Disruptive editing, your conduct most certainly falls under the definition of that term. That guideline states that examples of disruptive editing include the following:
  • continuing to edit an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors.
  • failure to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
  • Does not engage in consensus building:
a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
Wow, so you are the spokesperson for the whole editing community?
No. But I am a member of it, and my statements here do reflect its practices, which you can read about if you clicked on the policies and guidelines I linked you to. You have not falsified any of the those guidelines, or my application of them.
And YOU did a revert of my edit, why can't i do it to you ?
I did not do a revert of all of your edits. If you actually bothered to read my edits carefully, you'd see that I not only retained your addition of the announcement of Campos-Duff's seventh pregnancy, removed the faulty piped link, and even added an episode citation at the end of that passage. You simply reverted all of it blind.
In any event, your edits violated a number of policies and guidelines. Mine did not. Did I not make this abundantly clear above?
Well then you need to go through wiki because I see alot of The View (U.S. TV series) instead of The View.
The parenthetical is use for disambiguation purposes, and is used solely for article titles. It is generally not used when referring to the show in the article text. Most uses of it that appear in the text of articles are without that parenthetical, and not with it.
Third, I am allowed to delete your comments from my page because I dont want your negativity on my page.
This is not "your page". It is the talk page of this IP. If you want a talk page that you can blank, then you can sign up for a free username account. In any event, blanking messages instead of attempting to maintain a line of communication with an editor with whom you are involved in a disagreement will not look good for you when other editors are called in to look at this matter.
Fourth, if you are talking about overlinking,why did you do it on my page?
This page isn't an article, so it doesn't have to conform to that style guideline. Since it seemed clear that you were not getting the message that this sites' content is governed by policies and guidelines, it seemed like a good idea to re-emphasize them at times, in order to make it easier for you to click on them and learn them.
Lastly, I am restoring my edits.
And I have reverted them, since they violate the various policies and guidelines in question that I have mentioned, and you have failed to falsify this point, or make any indication that you even care about following this site's rules.
Where were you 2 days, 3days, 4 days ago to better the article?
The fact that your stated intent was to better the articles does not mean that you have carte blanche to violate Wikipedia's content guidelines, much less that the rest of the editing community here is going to bend over backwards while allowing you to do so. But if you'd like to know my own history with respect to those articles, you can check the edit history of each of those articles by clicking the "history" tab at the top of each article, and you'll see my contributions to both of those articles going back years. Here is a 2008 edit of mine in which I add sourced material to Sean Duffy, and here is the result of the first five edits to the Rachel Campos article, which I created, and on which I have been the most frequent contributor. Does that answer your question?
Why didnt YOU post on the discussion page before you just did a huge revert?
I did so here. What difference does it make? Would you like to migrate our discussion there?
I will reiterate my offer to help you in any way I can if you show a genuine good faith desire to contribute to this site in a constructive and collaborative manner. If you can tell me which pieces of info you added were sourced to that episode of The View, I will restore that information, and add the citation of that episode. If you point to the sources on the Internet that you indicated support the other material, I will help you compose citations for those sources as well. Let me know. Nightscream (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Please get an admin involved. Someone who knows that they are doing, is not rude, is willing to collaborate. I will not argue with you. 172.243.183.183 (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The editor at the IP address User talk:172.243.183.183 (now unblocked) has posted to my talk page, complaining that he/she and you were treated differently for what he/she sees as similar offences. I don't agree, with the IP editor: he/she was persistently disruptive and irrational, while you tried hard to be constructive. However, it is perhaps worth mentioning two issues where I think you may be subject to some valid criticism.
Firstly, you were at times uncivil. I understand why you did that, because it was in response to persistent provocation, with your concerted efforts to be helpful being persistently rebuffed, which must have been very frustrating, and I have sympathy with you for eventually giving vent to that frustration. However, even under such provocation, it is best to avoid being uncivil, because it achieves nothing, but runs the risk of attention being distracted onto criticism of your behaviour. You could even have been blocked for it.
Secondly, you reverted the IP editor's removal of content from the IP talk page. In one edit summary, you wrote "Revert. This isn't your personal talk page." Yes, there are certainly some types of content which an IP editor, unlike a registered editor, should not remove because it is not their personal talk page. For example, a "shared IP" template should not be removed, for obvious reasons. However, in this case the removed content was messages concerning one editor, and it was clear that the removal was done by that same editor. Under those circumstances, an IP editor has every bit as much right to remove content as a registered editor, and you were mistaken in reverting. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
James, Regarding the issue of blanking talk pages, I've already started a discussion on that, where I was pretty much told the same thing, much to my dismay.
Regarding your statement that I was at times incivil, however, can you point, perhaps with diffs, where I was incivil?
Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to duplicate what you had already been told about page blanking. I certainly wouldn't have posted here about it if I had known that the matter had already been dealt with.
The edit summary for this edit was rather uncivil. However, just in case the IP editor reads this, I wish to emphasise that the incivility there was tiny compared to the incivility and general obstructiveness of that IP editor, and his/her endlessly harping on about that one edit summary on numerous talk pages long after the event is totally disruptive. I will also now say something that I think I should have said in my post above: although I thought you were less civil on that occasion than you might have been, in almost all of your editing in relation to that IP editor, you remained perfectly civil and constructive, despite the endless incivility and unhelpful comments that you were faced with. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)
That edit summary was not incivil. "Obnoxiousness, hypocrisy and poor-reasoned inanity" is a description of behavior. Just because it is an unpleasant assessment, or because the person in question doesn't like hearing it, doesn't make it incivil. That person did indeed behave obnoxious, did indeed exhibit hypocrisy, and did indeed employ rather inane reasoning and statements. Thus, the summary is an accurate summary of their behavior. Had the language been purely inflammatory, and without any attempt to describe behavior and which could not have been backed up with reasoning/evidence, then that would've been incivil. Besides, that person made it clear that they did not wish to interact with me at all, so why were they reading my talk page summaries anyway? Nonetheless, I appreciate your advice, and your quite sensible assessment of my overall interaction with that person. Thank you. :-) Nightscream (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, you and I evidently have different ideas of what "incivility" means. As far as I am concerned, the fact that something is true does not necessarily mean that pointing it out can't be uncivil, and I don't think that telling someone that they are obnoxious, hypocritical and inane is civil. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say that an idea's truth means that it can't be uncivil, only that the edit summary in question was. It is perfectly reasonable to to criticize people when they engage in highly questionable behavior. If someone acts obnoxious, and you point out that they've acted obnoxious, how is pointing out that behavior uncivil? It isn't. Similarly, I said that that person's reasoning was inane and poor, which again, is an assessment of one's ideas or arguments, and not some personal invective. When Judge John Jones III mentioned the "breathtaking inanity" of the Dover School District's conduct in his stated judgement in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover case, was he being "uncivil"? In a similar vein, if one engages in hypocrisy, then pointing it out is perfectly legitimate, and not uncivil. It is wrong, and bordering on advocating Orwellian Doublespeak, in fact, to argue that one should not point it out. To argue that pointing it out is uncivil is to get it backwards. In any event, I didn't "tell someone" that they acted this way, since again, he indicated he had no intention of interacting me or reading anything that I wrote. When you falsely claim repeatedly that someone is "rude", repeatedly refer to another editor as "it", even after they've noted their gender to you, you don't get to whine when they make an assessment of this behavior. "I don't like being criticized" is not what "incivility" means. Nightscream (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Rekha Sharma[edit]

Get out freak Rekha Sharma uptade birh 1970 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.153.34 (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For being as great, all-around editor, who is not afraid to call out editors, IP or not, about their boorish words. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Bearian. It's nice (and all too rare) to hear a voice of sanity in this community. Nightscream (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Adi Granov[edit]

Hi, I've just had an edit reverted on the Adi Granov page and I completely understand why it was reverted, but the edit was requested by his wife Tamsin as it referred to her and her work. She thinks the phrasing is ambiguous and wanted it clarified that she no longer works for Thought Bubble. As such, the only reference I can give is a personal Facebook conversation. If you look at her Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/tamsinisles?ref=ts&fref=ts it will confirm, but I don't know how this would work as a citation. Advice, please? Attacksquid (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream, many thanks for your help and advice. I've spoken to Tamsin and Ade and they are going to make sure that the next interview Ade does mentions the "past tense" in order to create a linkable citation :-) I kind of thought the Facebook page might be a problem for exactly the reason you mentioned.... but not to worry. The citation issue will be dealt with soon. Best Wishes Attacksquid (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Rick Harrison[edit]

Hi this is pawnstar1965. Is Instagram a reliable source that you are looking for? I don't know how to do the citation thing, so could you do it for me? If you go to http://instagram.com/realcoreyharrison and hover your mouse over the pic where Corey is standing with him, the date on the top of the picture says "22 March 2014". Then you can click on that and Corey's caption says it is his father's birthday. Thank you for helping me out.

Pawnstar1965 (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I found this today, I wonder if this is acceptable. http://www.spokeo.com/Rick+Harrison+1

Pawnstar1965 (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I am trying again with this website: http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_4738204/rick-harrison/ scroll down and its on the right side.

Pawnstar1965 (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

what about peoplefinders.com? http://www.peoplefinders.com/reports/view.aspx?sales-order-item-id=5ae5be73-940e-4bbb-a35a-a2f600dbacf3 number 2.

Pawnstar1965 (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

check this out: http://how-rich.com/588/how-rich-is-rick-harrison/

Pawnstar1965 (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Consecutive cites in one paragraph[edit]

I was looking through my watchlist and saw your edit summary about consecutive cites being overkill. I would agree with you, but I have been challenged on this before. Some editors insist that each new concept—if not each new sentence—must be cited, even if it's to the same source. When there's controversy, I can see why an editor might want to err on the side of repetitive citing. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 04:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I read the essay from the link in your edit summary. Thanks for that. The logic seems solid to me. I don't even know why I had to comment except that I've been chastised before for NOT repeating the same citation over and over again. Next time, I'll have to suggest reading the essay. :-) --GentlemanGhost (converse) 05:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ginger Kids[edit]

Hello Nightscream,

Given your work on South Park articles, could you help find reviews for this episode? I'm able to find reports on controversy but not in-depth reviews of the episode itself.

XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Spider-Man Universe[edit]

Hi Nightscream. I know you mentioned on the Comic project page, that you were using articles for the upcoming event. Don't know if you saw this article, if you'd want to use it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Image placement[edit]

Hi, Night. Hope things are going OK. You're probably the most knowledgable of my colleagues about images, so I was wondering if you could answer something for me. Someone had mentioned an image guideline to me a few weeks ago saying images should not be directly below a subsection head (at left, anyway). I mentioned this to another editor, but now I'm unable to find any such guideline. Does this sound familiar? Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks and regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The only thing I've found so far refers to not placing imagesabove a section header. ("Each image should be inside the major section to which it relates (within the section defined by the most recent level 2 heading or at the top of the lead), not immediately above the section heading," at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images.) I'm wondering if the other editor was thinking of this guideline, but misremembered it? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah. Then I may owe someone an apology.... Oy!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Identity Crisis (DC Comics)[edit]

Hello.

First, thanks for explaining your removal. However, the reasons you cite should only apply to the second sentence I added. The first sentence, citing a 2009 article from Comics Alliance, clearly falls into the Wikipedia guidelines - it is cited, reliable, and verifiable. Comics Alliance is one of the primary comics journalism sites online, having been nominated for at least two Eisner Awards for excellence in comics journalism in recent years. CA named Identity Crisis as one of the 15 worst comics of the first decade of the twenty-first century and explained why it came to that conclusion. It is a perfectly valid example of comics criticism and should remain on the page as an example of negative opinion about the series.

Okay, I understand that you don't believe that the "Every Story Ever" list on War Rocket Ajax doesn't meet the guidelines as a secondary source as you believe it is a "fan poscast." Fair enough. I disagree. The War Rocket Ajax podcast is a comic book and pop culture show that is reaching two hundred episodes this upcoming week. It is hosted by two people who, while fans, are also professional writers and comics journalists. Chris Sims is a writer and columnist for the aforementioned Comics Alliance, has written for Grantland - the ESPN/Disney-owned pop culture website, and is a comics creator himself (he is the writer of Sub Atomic Party Girls (a Monkeybrain comic) and has written for the Image comic Skullkickers). Matt Wilson, his co-host, also writes for Comics Alliance, is a regular contributor the The A/V Club, writes comics (Copernicus Jones, on Monkeybrain), and has written two books on comic book culture including The Super-Villains' Handbook. The War Rocket Ajax podcast has an interview every week, usually with a comic creator. Past guests have included Marvel and DC writers Rick Remender, Jonathan Hickman, Jeff Parker, Greg Pak, Jason Aaron, and on multiple occasions Matt Fraction. Based on these factors, the show rises above the level of "fan podcast" and into secondary source, as per the Wikipedia guidelines. As for the list, as noted, it is an arbitrary, subjective ranking of comic book stories and arcs. Listeners submit a story arc and Sims ans Wilson rank it against the previous submissions. This is similar to the WFMU/Best Show/Tom Sharpling "Best Song Ever" ranking, where Mr. Sharpling would rank a given song against a list of other, previously ranked songs, to arrive at a list similar to other "Best song of all time lists," such at the Rolling Stone 500. Including the WRA ranking in this section shows that some critics/journalists consider "Identity Crisis" to be, literally, the worst story of all time.

Lastly, I did provide an edit summary. Perhaps it was too terse; I apologize. I believe the reception section, as currently formed, does not fully demonstrate the negative criticism the series has received in the decade since its publication. The specific negative criticism in the section as currently constituted, by Mr. Organ, concerns some of the art - art which he later states he enjoys, tempering his earlier negativity. Including the Comics Alliance quote provides context to the reader. Including the WRA ranking shows that some critics consider the story to be quite poor.

Respectfully, I disagree with your assessment and ask that the changes be permitted.

Rob 173.80.146.108 (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

List of exonerated death row inmates[edit]

I've added the edit again with some references. Regards, Michael Peter Fustumum (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Saga (comic book)[edit]

Responding to:

"Hi. You removed content from the Saga (comic book) article with this edit of yours, but without providing a rationale for this in an Edit Summary. Since you've been editing here for some time, I'm sure you know by now that when removing material, you should specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. As for Lying Cat's gender, it is female, as indicated on Page 36, Panel 1 of issue #1. Thanks."

Thanks for clarifying Lying Cat's sex, as she was referred to with both gender pronouns in the article prior. Here is indication that Lying Cat's power extends to determining whether people are intentionally lying or telling things they don't believe are true. This is the same definition of lying we apply to people who believe they have been abducted by aliens when in fact they have never been abducted. Lying Cat would not be able to know whether such people had actually been abducted. She merely could determine whether they were being intentionally misleading. Otherwise, Lying Cat's power would be, frankly, absurd. The Will could just make statements at Lying Cat ad infinitum to determine any information about the entire universe. He clearly does not do this. When Lying Cat says "Lying?" in response to Gwen's hallucination it is because Gwen does not know whether her first lover is actually standing in front of her or whether it is an illusion.

Sausagerooster (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Thanks for working with me on the Rick Harrison Page Pawnstar1965 (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Userboxes[edit]

Im just curious how you got all those boxes that say stuff about you on your user page. like how long you have been on wikipedia, that your italian, and your an organ donor etc etc. can anyone get boxes?

Pawnstar1965 (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hoffman Suicide[edit]

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edit to List of suicides, as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edit had to be reverted, because the source you cited does not support your claim that Hoffman's death was a suicide, as it makes no mention of this. In fact, the subtitle of that story explicitly states that it was ruled an accident. When adding material, please make sure that the source you cite supports the material. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.2.222 (talk)

Hey Nightscream, I too was curious about the nature of Hoffman's death and his inclusion, but there are a number of other overdoses listed in that particular collection, few if any imply intent, as nearly all suicides by overdose are "accidental", and so I thought adding him apropos. If that's cause for rejection of my addition, then review of the entire page may be needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.2.222 (talk)

Alex Wilde and The Dragon: Blood & Guts[edit]

Alex Wilde and The Dragon: Blood & Guts are up for deletion so if you wish to participate in the conversation for or against deletion or improving said articles be my guest. I thought you may be interested since you were in a previous discussion about said subjects. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Asgardian[edit]

I see you reverted my blanking of Asgardian's user page. I did this because he is now unblocked, per Arbcom motion - see his talk page, or WT:BASC. There is no longer a requirement for the tag, and I suggest you revert. WormTT(talk) 22:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There was indeed a discussion within the Arbitration Committee between February and April. The committee's remit includes appeals by long term banned users, as well as appeals of the committee's own decisions - both of which fit Asgardian's case. He's been unblocked with a one account restriction, a topic ban on his "hot topic" and an agreement that any admin can reblock indefinitely should he act disruptively. I believe that's a strict enough set of restrictions. WormTT(talk) 07:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Nice to know that members of the community that had to deal with him and his serial violations for three years were not notified to that discussion. Can you link me? Nightscream (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Only to the end product, at his talk page, ban appeal announcements and Arbcom noticeboard. This is pretty standard, his last sock was October 2013 so he meets the OFFER requirements. The ban was only made indefinite due to exasperation, it was originally meant to be a year. The restrictions are strict. As I say, if he edits disruptively to get a block, it's an instant indef. WormTT(talk) 11:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Why is there no linkable discussion? Was it held off-site or in secret, or something? Nightscream (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Off-site, on the arbcom-appeal-en list, as all BASC appeals are, yes. It was also moved to the arbitration committee wiki for voting. WormTT(talk) 11:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Gail Simone[edit]

Hey Nightscream I made an addition of Impact to Simone's page and you heavily edited it, including ridding of the GLAAD nominations. I would like to know why you did this as you reworded the title into Awards and Recognition and left out a key factor of why she has been recognised (being supportive of the LGBTQ community). CPTN AWSUM (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

US Airways Flight 1549[edit]

Hi. Would you please take a look at this detail re. US Airways Flight 1549 and contribute to resolving the discrepancy b/w what's stated in the article, what's logically possible, and what's reported in at least half of the sources cited? Greatly appreciate your attention to this matter and hope it is something that can be resolved quickly and w/o complication. Thanks, Azx2 19:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I did provide a reason as to my removal of the material. I cited that the brand names of the salvage companies added no value to the article. The paragraph was silly - it introduced the concept that the airplane could have been salvageable had another company extracted it from the Hudson River. It does not matter to the core of the article - that a plane safely landed in the Hudson River without any causalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.187.67 (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

John Schlossberg AfD[edit]

Since you participated in the 3rd AfD for John Schlossberg, just thought I'd say a 4th AfD has begun in case you're interested. You do not have to comment if you don't want, just thought I'd let you know. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Yardley of London and Aimperator: Same to you[edit]

Thank you for the thanks. :-) Please feel free to alert me if you should happen to see some, uh, "new" user inserting the same material in Yardley of London. With long blocks of SPA's, it sometimes happens. Bishonen | talk 20:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC).

Re: Skeptical Inquirer: Capitalization of a season[edit]

Hi, I saw your edit capitalizing "fall". Based on WP:SEASON, I had changed it to lower case. What is your thinking? Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 23:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

User: 68.51.141.108[edit]

I was scratching my head, as I was sure I had left a note in my revert. So, I went back and somehow, I didn't. Argh! OK, I reverted the talk page back due to it being a copy of an article that was decided to not be created *and* the IP editor copy/pasting from that the biography of that person in various articles (which ended up reverted by other editors) from the IP editor's talk page. I just can't believe I forgot to leave a comment, as I normally do!Wzrd1 (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Michael Shermer discussion[edit]

I'm not sure why you chose to select myself and a dozen other editors for your request, there, but following WP:3O (or simply waiting a few more hours to see who else joins the conversation) would probably be more constructive. --McGeddon (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Tiger Shark[edit]

I just read your thing about Tiger Shark on my talk page. I originally had "Other characters named Tiger Shark" there in case there are different Tiger Sharks. I just found out about the one that received one of the previous Tiger Shark costumes from Roderick Kingsley (who had supplied the costumes and gears of other costumes to unknown criminals regardless of the original wearer is either dead, still alive, or retired) in "The Amazing Spider-Man" Vol. 3 #1 when that Tiger Shark alongside the former Hobgoblin minions (which now include someone in a Hydro-Man costume and someone in a Squid costume) were seen in the Bar with No Name during Electro. As for publication history and fictional character biography, I had hoped that the publication history would list the debuts of the character and who created that character while fictional character biography would detail the biography of the character just like they should do with Daredevil's page to list an example. I know that the bullets would often be used for something if there are other media appearances for characters when their next appearance in any type of media occurs. Did I leave anything out? --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Spider-Man (Miles Morales) # Other versions[edit]

Hi, thanks for reviewing and commenting on my changes to the article. And you know, there is indeed a comic book titled Spider-Man: Season One (if I may make a link: 1, 2). Think that counts as confirmation. And, yes, that is the clearest allusion to Morales ever - in the aforementioned comic book: 3. That's it. --176.37.123.136 (talk) 13:57, May 22, 2014

Zephram Cochrane[edit]

If this is how it is spelled elsewhere, then someone screwed up. If you check the credits at the end of Star Trek:TNG First Contact, it is spelled without the "e". 174.126.53.41 (talk) 17:38, May 28, 2014‎ (Davisa6477)

Paula Garcés[edit]

Hello Nightscream, I have replied to you at User talk:Taketa#Paula Garcés. Also, this revert is even worse then your first. You state that correct info is false and that a contribution where every single sentence is inline cited is uncited. Your negative contribution has already been reverted by a good will user. I hope you learn from this. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Corey Harrison[edit]

just have to say that corey never wrote a book, it was his father, and it is called license to pawn: deals, steals, and my life at the gold and silver. http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/license-to-pawn-rick-harrison/1101112778?ean=9781401324308 67.247.239.22 (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Adams Good Article Nomination[edit]

Hi Nightscream,

The bot didn't give you the results of the GAN, so I'm leaving this message myself. Sorry you had to wait four months for a review, but it failed for GA. You can see the details here. Best of luck getting this up to GA later on.

XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Zinc(I)[edit]

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)#Use of Stock nomenclature point #2. SpinningSpark 23:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Christos Gage[edit]

Can I get some more clarification on why this page is being reverted? Chris himself (and his wife) are trying to update the page and are properly sourcing, but it looks like you reverted a lot of their edits (including sourced ones), and they are trying to figure out why. Thanks. Jdateno1moyle (talk) 21:43, June 8, 2014(UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

Bästa nyskrivna.svg 100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

Bästa nyskrivna.svg This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 18:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Molly Crabapple[edit]

Considering how bad of shape the Crabapple article is at this point, could I ask you to take a step back for a week or so while I work on it? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, I asked you to take a step back for a week. I really don't want to have to go to ANI on this, but if you keep this up, I'm going to have to file a report. You originally tagged this article and "ran", and when I show up to fix the mess you didn't, you strangely ask me on my talk page "what's wrong with the article?" Seriously? You don't remember what's wrong with it, yet you felt the need to add all sorts of maintenance tags that I'm trying to address? You know, this is the reason I try to avoid you, because trying to communicate with you is almost impossible. I asked you to stay away from the article for a week for a reason. The reason is, I'm trying to improve it. If you want to discuss your obsession with the singular section heading, I've opened a thread about it on the talk page that you are welcome to address, and you already know about it because I've pinged you. Please use the discussion page for any concerns you might have and let me finish this work without disruption. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Tony Vlachos discussion[edit]

Consider to revert your request, look at the top of her page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I edit conflicted with Gerda. I already reverted the edit, and anyone should feel free to do similar for these innocent notifications. Dennis Brown |  | WER 23:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Can you, Nightscream, please look around before you ask? A blocked user without talk page access will not help you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

George Herriman[edit]

Listen, the article made it through the GA process, the FA process, and a day on the Main Page on Krazy Kat's hundredth anniversary without anyone so much as sneezing about the article's purpoted "poor organization". Are you seriously going to commit yourself to an edit war over this? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Of course, I never wrote anything as inane as your "cannot be edited or improved"—Look! There are my words right above! The issue is you persistently reverting to what you think was an obvious improvement, and slagging the article for its "lousy organization". The "Personal history" section is chronological—the other sections aren't. Get it? Nothing is improved by capriciously dividing the chronology into two sections. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Viriditas[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk: Molly Crabapple. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Calling other editors liars (even if you think that they are lying) does not contribute to collaboration. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit. It is Viriditas who has repeatedly attacked my motives for my editing, without providing any evidence for his accusations to the exclusion of other motives, and has continued to do so, even after I pointed out that this clearly violated WP:AGF, something for which other editors such as yourself have done nothing. I have every right to point out when someone has deliberately stated a falsehood in falsely accusing another editor, ad hominem of some nefarious motive, without evidence. It is that which is incivil, and not calling them on it. Spare me your hypocrisy. Nightscream (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride[edit]

Upcoming Saturday event - June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC
Wikimedia LGBT outreach logo.svg

You are invited to join us at Jefferson Market Library for "Wiki Loves Pride", hosted by New York Public Library, Metropolitan New York Library Council, Wikimedia LGBT and Wikimedia New York City, where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme:

11am–4pm at Jefferson Market Library.

We hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Re:Citations in articles about competition reality TV shows[edit]

Dear User:Nightscream, hello! Thanks for your request on my talk page. I went ahead and added a comment there. I hope this helps! With regards, AnupamTalk 05:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Uncited material in Shroud[edit]

Deuteronomy is uncited?

I don't think you folks would know uncited material if it bit you on the backside. You clearly play favorites, allowing—even encouraging—random imbeciles to post whatever, whenever. Especially when something is conceivably controversial, you put your own pathetically spun arguments—unsourced, thank you very much—while pontificating about the contributions of others more knowledgeable and lettered than yourselves. What a crock.

50.128.184.140 (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Deuteronomy is uncited?
No, the material you added was uncited. The Bible is a primary source, not a secondary source, as required by WP:PSTS, and it makes no mention of "Jewish law". Rather, Jewish law, as well as Christian law, Muslim law, etc., is based on the Bible, so mention of this in Wikipedia requires a secondary source.
I don't know which "folks" you're referring to, but no one would make such a ridiculous comment about me if they actually looked at my editing history, which consists largely of fact-tagging or removing material that is not accompanied by inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, or which constitutes original research, the opinion of the editor, informal, promotional wording, etc., such as this material I just removed hours ago. If you observe other editors doing the opposite, then you should take that matter up with them, or report them to others, instead of ignorantly assuming things about me that you don't know, much less vandalizing Wikipedia, as you did with this rant about Wikipedia that you added to the Shroud article. Anyone who adds a rant about their personal perceptions of Wikipedia to the text of an article clearly holds no respect for the rules of the websites he/she visits, much less the ability to participate in a collaborative project like Wikipedia, and therefore, shouldn't be bitching and moaning about the competence of others. Nightscream (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I would contend that Wikipedia holds no respect for its utile contributors. You encourage nonsense; haphazardly accept this and reject that, merely slapping, "This article requires attention," where too lazy actually to TAKE action; and permit those who can barely speak English to contribute volumes of material.
Sorry, but many of your "sysops" (deliberately to employ an outdated AOL-ese term) come off as teenage sys admin wannabees from the 1970s or mIRC moderators infatuated with their "Boot user" buttons.
And then you have the chutzpah to ask for contributions . . 50.128.184.140 (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

"In addition, sentences end in punctuation." LOL!

No, vandalism doesn't do wonders for one's credibility. But imagine the righteous anger that people feel, particularly when things that they worked LONG AND HARD on are summarily undone by some joker. In particular, as a widely published authority on computer security (from days LONG past, not some Johnny-come-lately who took a "degree" at JohnQPublicsUniversity.edu), I find it unconscionable when, for example, I go to great lengths to edit a "Windows security" article—or some such—to dispel adspeak and nonsense and call a spade a spade, and some teenage yahoo deletes my posting because he's been brainwashed into thinking that the likes of Microsoft and Google actually care a whit about security. (That's why iPhones, out of the box, can immediately be commandeered by someone ten thousand miles away: a FEATURE, mind you, not a BUG!)

Couldn't something be done to differentiate people who know what they're talking about from those who don't? Yes, I know, nobody can be an expert in everything under the sun (though there are some polyhistors about, FYI: some even closer than you think), but a quick exam in a general subject area could discriminate abject imbeciles from quasi-knowledgeable would-be contributors. 50.128.184.140 (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

"Preach on, brother 50 dot such-and-such" gave me a laugh. I actually have an ID, BruceDavidWilner, but I typically don't bother to sign on using it. Perhaps I should . . . advantages? disadvantages? implications thereof? 50.128.184.140 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic[edit]

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic
Wiknic logo.svg

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Central Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.

1pm–8pm at southwest section of the Great Lawn, north of the Delacorte Theater.

Also, before the picnic, you can join in the Wikimedia NYC chapter's annual meeting.

11:30am-12:30pm at Yeoryia Studios, 2067 Broadway.

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Your GA nomination of Arthur Adams (comics)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arthur Adams (comics) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of XXSNUGGUMSXX -- XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Article looks much better this time. Only several things to address. Snuggums (talkcontributions) 21:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The article Arthur Adams (comics) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Arthur Adams (comics) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of XXSNUGGUMSXX -- XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The article Arthur Adams (comics) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Arthur Adams (comics) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of XXSNUGGUMSXX -- XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Arthur Adams (comics)[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Caren Lissner/Matzner[edit]

Hi Nightscream. Not sure if this is the place to leave a note for you, hope I'm doing this right. My changes to the entry about Caren Matzner/Caren L issner are mainly because her name on all her writing, her author name, is Caren L issner. Matzner is a name used at a day job. I think Matzner should be redirected to Lissner, not the reverse Webpage is carenlissner.com. Thanks! ----Neighbor/friend 67.87.154.7 17:54, July 26, 2014‎

Creating user pages[edit]

Hi. You state that you are in the interest of helping new users. I've been on Wikipedia for over a year, but I've never seriously considered things like making my own user page before now. Is there anything important I should know about that? Thank you. Transphasic (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Transphasic (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share[edit]

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share
Statue-of-liberty tysto.jpg

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

2pm–5pm at Yeoryia Studios at Epic Security Building, 2067 Broadway (5th floor).

Afterwards at 5pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided).

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

List of suicides[edit]

What did I do wrong on the List of suicides page ?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Potential applications of graphene[edit]

I usually like to conduct these conversations on the article's talk page, but OK.

The main point is that many of the refs are from years ago and some applications should have either proven out or been abandoned because of better alternatives or have been refined in ways that our readers would want to understand. Lfstevens (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Reception[edit]

Hey man! Do you have an idea of how the structure of critical reception should be in film articles? I'm editing User:URDNEXT/sandbox which is my draft for Batman Under the Red Hood, and I can't seem to find the right way t write the reception since it doesn't have as much coverage as theatrical release articles. Any help is appreciated! URDNEXT (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you take a little look at my under the red hood draft on User:URDNEXT/sandbox? I'm re writing the entire article by myself, so feedback is really appreciated! Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Original Sin-related[edit]

I heard that you got involved in the Original Sin storyline by doing individual sections of the tie-ins. I think that is a good idea like someone did with the tie-ins to some of the other comic storylines. That way, we can put the information of the tie-ins there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

For the abbreviation, I thought we didn't need to abbreviate Life Model Decoy. That's my claim for the abbreviation. Also, I thought we list Black Panther by his full name. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yahoo News[edit]

"Since 2011, Yahoo has expanded its focus to include original content, as part of its plans to become a major media organization." Per Yahoo News. So although it is regarded as a news aggregator, they were the first media outlet to report a photo of Darren Wilson. I think they deserve the italicization. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ace Frehley[edit]

Nightscream, I am bewildered on how to add this reference to his page. It baffles me.

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/ace-frehley-space-invader-track-listing/ Hired Ghoul (talk) 11:59, August 24, 2014‎

Wow, that is amazing how you have informed me on the process. Incredible!! Hired Ghoul (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion for Wolverine (character)[edit]

I am inviting you to take part in this discussion to determine if the page should be called Wolverine (character) or "Wolverine (comics)." --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Umbrella[edit]

hey! sorry about that edit, i actually had taken that content from the page for the music video for umbrella and didnt write those comment myself. i only added that information because i thought we should merge umbrella the song's page with umbrella the music video's page. sorry!!

Neddy1234 09:43, August 28, 2014‎

When the date shows up but not your name[edit]

Don't know how/why I managed to sign my post so that the date showed up but my username did not

The date shows up but not the username if you put down five tildes instead of four. Watch me sign twice: 01:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This trick is for people who write and promote RfCs and want to leave potential as unbiased as possible. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 84.13.33.81[edit]

Hello Nightscream,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged 84.13.33.81 for deletion, because it seems to be a test. Did you know that the Wikipedia Sandbox is available for testing out edits?

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

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 18:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (An Honest Liar) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating An Honest Liar, Nightscream!

Wikipedia editor SantiLak just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great article, keep it up!

To reply, leave a comment on SantiLak's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SantiLak 22:00, September 5, 2014‎

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nightscream. You have new messages at SantiLak's talk page.
Message added 03:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SantiLak (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

File:PeterDinklageAsBolivarTrask.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PeterDinklageAsBolivarTrask.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Isaac Hempstead-Wright[edit]

You left a warning on my talk page, which seems to of been in error. I did not add non-sourced material to the article in question. I undid a very silly POV-pushing edit. Maybe 'Lol' wasn't the best edit summary but I was kinda in a hurry :P regards - Somchai Sun (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Tagging people as atheist[edit]

Actually, it does say that it should be relevant to their notability as a required criteria. Did you read it? Quoting WP:BLPCAT:

"and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability"

Nymf (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, since you dismissed BLPCAT, the infobox guideline at Template:Infobox person says:

"For living persons please refer to WP:BLPCAT"

I don't think you read either. Nymf (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)