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. :-)


Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear Nightscream,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear Nightscream,
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! Thank you for all your consistently excellent work through the years. Last year was a hard one, both physically, thanks to medical ailments, and on Wikipedia, thanks to a plethora of Wikitrolls. Colleagues like you make staying here worthwhile. Here's to a better year to all!
--Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Another excessive details[edit]

I know what you are saying. That time, nobody bothered to do your version of summarized details when it came to Collector's appearance on Hulk and the Agents of S.M.A.S.H. and sorting his appearances in the Marvel Cinematic Universe which I did my best on both of them before your corrections. Did I leave anything out? --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Wineville Chicken Murders[edit]

Regarding Wineville Chicken Coop Murders: I am the person who wrote the sentences that you are asking to be reviewed and further clarified. Please check out the talk page for Wiki Wineville Chicken Coop Murders and my response. I think I have provided clarification to your questions. Beaconboy (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Nightscream: When it was all said and done (editing on Wineville Chicken Coop murders), it seems to me that you (once again) made a big tadoo out of what were basically a few grammatical errors. You came roaring in, demanding corrections, leaving your personal comments on the Wiki Article ("Fix this"), which is against policy. While I totally respect your understanding, knowledge and application of English Grammar, I strongly suggest that you begin to temper your impulses to attack people who may not be as well educated about the proper usage of grammar as you are. After all, it was just a few grammatical errors that are now corrected. Your approach made it sound to those reading, that the entire section about 'The Boy Whom Came Forward' was nothing more than a lie, which was not correct. You turned a mole-hill into a mountain. Quite frankly, when you view the number of people whom have read the article (just in the last year), you are the only person whom complained so vociferously about nothing more than a few sentence restructures. Get a grip, we are not speaking about saving lives here. It is just an article, and a more polite and specific approach with others in the future, will only help you to achieve the edits that you feel are necessary. I was amazed that by your own admission, you stated, that while you had not read the source for a quote you questioned, that somehow you knew it was wrong and felt it needed to be corrected. My best to you, but you should spend some time in your life learning how to work with others, instead of focusing so heavily on grammatical errors. That will serve you well in the future. I can see that I am not the only person whom has complained to you about your tact on your talk-page. Beaconboy (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Beaconboy, I have no idea what you're talking about. I did not "demand corrections", I did not "attack" anyone, and I certainly never said nor implied that anything in the section was a lie, except in your imagination. I simply pointed out that some passages, as written, made no sense, which is true, and did not require a reading of the source, grammar is not source-specific (even if meaning was, and therefore, would've required it to clarify the matter). Thanks again for your help. Nightscream (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I will leave it like this. You state that you have no idea of what I was talking about. I think that about sums up why I wrote you in the first place. What is normal tact conversation for you can be considered agressive fanatical attacking by others. I get it that you have no idea what I am talking about............that is why I wrote try to get you to look beyond yourself and consider your tone and how it impacts others in their reaction to you. My best to you in the future. Beaconboy (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, because in fact I did not attack anyone, say or imply anything in the section was a "lie", and there was nothing inappropriate about my tone. My messages were perfectly polite. Nightscream (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It's quite all-right. Good-day to you sir. Beaconboy (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus again[edit]

You seem to have serious problems with understanding the notion of "consensus", given your latest edits to Molly Crabapple. Three editors supported the changes, while you were the lone editor against; nevertheless, you recently removed those changes with a bizarre appeal to WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, which completely contradicts your claim and supports my edit. I'm getting the sense that English is not your first language, because not only did you misread the MOS, you went on to add content that does not appear to be English. You wrote: "In 2013 Crabapple traveled to documented a trip the detention camp..." among other stuff. Normally, I would just ignore this and add the material back in and fix your content, but since you keep pulling this nonsense in multiple articles, I'm bringing it to your attention before I escalate the matter. I should clarify, if you think you are removing this material because of BLP concerns, you couldn't be more wrong. Crabapple is proud of her past and talks about it in every interview at every available opportunity, and considers herself an advocate on these issues. So your motivation, which I cannot begin to understand, has me very confused. If, however, Crabapple told you that she doesn't want it there, I would be open to considering her view in light of that fact. However, based on what I've read about her, I don't think she really thinks that. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas please don't assert bad faith to an established editor, and also don't assume a single typographical error means that same editor is not a native speaker of English, especially in light of Nightscream's thousands of edits over the past several years. I'm not familiar with the dispute (my only connection is as his mentor), per WP:BLP, unless some political stance or advocacy is well-documented, and relevant, our best standard is to keep it out. FWIW, I teach legal writing, and have a doctorate, and have been known to make typos; we're all volunteers here, so have compassion on your fellow editors. Bearian (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Nightscream removed content that three editors (including myself) found acceptable. He also cited a MOS that did not support his rationale, but actually supported mine. Further, this is not the first time he's done this. I have had to forcibly remove several articles from my watchlist because of him, and he's well aware of this. AGF is not a suicide pact, so please don't lecture me. I am able to edit harmoniously and collaboratively with most users. Nightscream is not one of them. Every time he shows up there's a major problem. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Nightscream, the version you edited had so many major problems that I reverted to the last good version. I was very surprised to see that you had, in at least two places, ignored the previous discussion and consensus. I have to ask, just what were you thinking? You knew quite well that this had already been discussed, yet you pretended like it never occurred. You removed content from the lead against consensus, and you restored the subsections after we already discussed it. Your obsession with removing this lead summary and adding totally unnecessary subsections is quite disruptive. Further, your content additions were quite bad, full of grammar and spelling errors, as well as time-sensitive material that didn't belong. I will have to ask you to participate on the talk page once again. I'm getting very tired of your bad behavior. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Rebecca Guay Infobox Pic[edit]

Hey please stop reverting the current pic on Guay's page. It's often difficult to get permission from people to use images on Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons, especially artists. She sent this one because she wanted something more current than that old pic. Please respect that. -Object404 (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page, Rebecca Guay does not own her Wikipedia article, and does not get to dictate its content. If Ms. Guay does not like the current Infobox portrait, then she can work with the editing community by providing other photographic choices of equal or superior quality. The other photo was a blurry/out-of-focus shot of her looking off to the side, which is not the best choice for the Infobox portrait. Whether it is more recent is irrelevant to this, and moreover, it and the other photo that was further down in the article have been deleted from the Commons, due to copyright issues. If Ms. Guay or some other party would like to upload more photos whose copyright they own, I would be more than happy to initiate a consensus discussion with other editors here, as I have many times in the past, so that the community can decide which photo is best.
Also, new messages go at the bottom of a talk page, not the top. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, but my time is valuable, and a coder, web developer and UI/UX specialist, it's bad practice to make users scroll through lines of content to get to where they need to go. I'll keep posting comments at the top of pages where newer ones can be seen and addressed easily. If the world worked that way, you'd be checking e-mail by scrolling through the bottom of potentially pages of your stack, instead of seeing it at once at the top of your inbox. All new updates are best placed at the top of pages, like in any software developed by the community. You may post your comments at the bottom of my talk page, but I prefer you post them at the top where I can immediately see them. thank you. -Object404 (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey bro. Thank you for wielding the threat of the banhammer over this at my talk page and letting me know that my good-faith contributions to Wikipedia which take a significant amount of time investment (where I always cite all my sources - not easy work to have to weed through hundreds of articles or archives to dead & expired links to find those obscure nuggets of information that the average netizen might now know), and a certain level of emotional toll and exhaustion, are not welcome. I implore you to visit the following link and read this (relatively recent) article, and really, just give it a really good long read. Please scroll down and read all the comments and take a good, long, hard look at what you are doing here:
MIT Technology Review: The Decline of Wikipedia
By Tom Simonite on October 22, 2013
This is not just a simple suggestion, it's a "must-read" for all Wikipedia editor/volunteers, especially for those who have long-time experience, have been around for years, and have contributed a lot (like you). It may behoove you for me to ask you to read it (it's really more of a plea), but please, you really do need to. (the conversations in its comments section are relatively civil and it's a good discussion that every Wikipedian will find valuable) It's crisis that needs to be addressed because the environment for people who genuinely want to contribute and have the capability and subject-matter expertise to contribute can become really, really toxic and it's something that needs to be fixed. It would be great if you could leave an e-mail address or some place where we can chat in private because there's stuff that's not for public consumption (like in a Wiki talk page) that I'd like to discuss. I'm not quite sure how this works: but it would be great if you could help me out with it. Best regards and thanks. -Object404 (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Superman: Earth One[edit]

Hi, can you help copy edit the summary I made for vol. 3? Thanks.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes info in the Kingsmen: The Secret Service article[edit]

"RT does not "judge" or "call" films anything. They derive a consensus based on what others call it or judge it". I am afraid you are labouring under a misapprehension if you believe this to be true. While many reviews give a form of score, many do not, and Rancid Tomatoes will judge the carefully balanced prose of the critic and strip all nuance out to boil it down to a mind-numbingly crass and dumbed down statistic. Take the Kingsman review, in Variety, written by Peter Debruge. Not a single score, grade, average or rating to be seen, and yet RT has judged it to be positive. However you try to cut it, RT have ascribed something to that review which is not inherently stated by the reviewer.

As to RT's self-claimed "consensus", there is no such thing. What RT shows to is not a consensus: it is a summary of some key points. The OED defines a consensus as "Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons". That is a long way from what RT call a consensus. Regardless of all that, we are under no compunction to slavishly follow their name for a film summary, and can call it what on earth we like, and I see no reason to start changing the definition of a word just to fit with one company's misuse of it. – SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yet again you edit war over the Rancid Tomatoes score. THERE IS AN OPEN DISCUSSION ON THE ARTICLES TALK PAGE. I suggest you read it, and join in, rather than edit war to your preferred wording: there is a specific consensus against your wording, so your edits are.t constructive. – SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)