User talk:Nightscream: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:10, 4 April 2014

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. :-)

Archive 1 (2005): March 5, 2005 - December 29, 2005
Archive 2 (2006): January 2, 2006 - January 18, 2007
Archive 3 (2007): January 18, 2007 - December 26, 2007
Archive 4 (2008): January 2, 2008 - December 31, 2008
Archive 5 (2009): January 2, 2009 - 2 January 2010
Archive 6 (2010): January 1, 2010 - December 29, 2010
Archive 7 (2011): January 2, 2011 - December 30, 2011
Archive 8 (2012): January 1, 2012 - December 31, 2012
Archive 9 (2013): January 2, 2013 - December 3, 2013

Happy New Year, Nightscream

Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pat Roach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP:Primary listed at Redirects for discussion

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)[reply]

Spider-Man enemies

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. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

The drafting arbitrator of the Nightscream case has placed elements of the proposed decision on the workshop page. Your comments are welcome. --Rs chen 7754 19:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Rs chen 7754 10:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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, Rs chen 7754 01:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Per the request of Arbcom, I've removed administrator rights from this account. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ditto. I'd support any new adminship request you put in. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nightcrawler

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

MOS:USERGENERATED listed at Redirects for discussion

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)[reply]

MOSS:SECTION HEAD listed at Redirects for discussion

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)[reply]

Terms should only be wikilinked once listed at Redirects for discussion

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)[reply]

Edit summary for Joseph Swan 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spiral (comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Avengers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoboken, New Jersey

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)[reply]

Reliability of Emporis for Kızılay Emek Business Center

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Shermer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skeptic (magazine) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday: NYC Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon

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

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)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Union City High School

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. 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)[reply]

My edit at The Lego Movie

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Union City High School

The article Union City High School you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The article Union City High School you nominated as a good article has passed ; 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)[reply]

Chumlee

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)[reply]

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

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:

Saturday March 1: Harlem History Editathon (RSVP), focusing on Harlem history, landmarks and biographies
Saturday March 8: NYU Law Editathon (RSVP), focusing on innovation law and intellectual property (with social dinner afterward)

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?

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)[reply]

Coral Smith

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That approach sounds appropriate. Alansohn (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al Plastino

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)[reply]

Peter J. Ganci, Jr.

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)[reply]

Rachel Campos-Duffy, Sean Duffy

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rekha Sharma

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

A barnstar for you!

	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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Adi Granov

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rick Harrison

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Consecutive cites in one paragraph

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ginger Kids

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)[reply]

Spider-Man Universe

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)[reply]

Image placement

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ah. Then I may owe someone an apology.... Oy! : ) --Tenebrae (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Identity Crisis (DC Comics)

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)[reply]