Jump to content

User talk:Nightscream

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ATS (talk | contribs) at 23:39, 23 August 2021 (comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. :-)

Censorship of Mark Millar's The Authority

Figured it's better to duke it out here rather than the edit comments section.

  • The series had censorship issues during Millar's run. The restored uncensored pages in issues #13–14 and 27–28 were first printed in The Authority: Absolute Edition Volume 2 (hc, 504 pages, 2018, ISBN 1-4012-8115-X)
  • Several panels in multiple issues of Millar's run were censored, due to their depiction of violence, sexuality, or for political reasons. The restored uncensored pages in issues #13–14 and 27–28 were first printed in The Authority: Absolute Edition Volume 2 (hc, 504 pages, 2018, ISBN 1-4012-8115-X)

As I said, "several panels" is an understatment since the censorship affected several pages, numerous panels and a couple of covers.

Moreover, the part with the "rationale for censorship" has no place in the bibliography which lists solicited and/or completed and collected work. The passage in question is about the fact that there's a book out there with restored uncensored pages (with a brief sentence of context as to why that warrants a mention at all), but after your edit the focus shifts to censorship itself. This part needs to be moved either to the Career section or to a new section about Millar-originated controversies, given that there have been plenty of those.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.233.80 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@5.18.233.8: Thanks for your message. Just so you know, editors who intend to perform than just a one-off edit are expected to sign in for a username account. It makes it easier to communicate with someone else when you can address them or refer to them by a name.
Regarding the edit, if that's the case, then why not just replace "several" with the amount, or replace "panels" with pages? For that matter, if you object to the elaboration on the behind-the-scenes reasons for this, why not just move it to the article body? Why the wholesale, seemingly knee-jerk revert?
I've removed the qualifying terms and elaboration from the passage, and relegated it to the Career section, where it should've been. Let me know if this is an adequate compromise/resolution. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nightscream: "Why the wholesale, seemingly knee-jerk revert?" — It really was just that, I apologize. The idea to move it to Millar's career section came to me as I was typing the above message, and my original reasoning was that The Authority article covers the censorship part well enough (and, at this stage, I'm more interested in researching/filling out bibliographies rather than biographies).
The current version is adequate enough but I'd honestly rather leave the original as I see it as more of a blanket statement that covers all the issues that started with Millar's run, including the cancelled Hitch one-shot and Azzarello/Dillon volume as well as some of the pages that were cut from Millar's script — and not just the stuff that was eventually restored. But if that's too vague, I understand.
While I'm at it, two more questions: you changed "Grant Morrison claims to have ghost-written" to "Grant Morrison states he ghost-wrote" — is that correct if Morrison's claim, as far as I could find so far, has never been corroborated by either Millar or DC (via any of the numerous Authority reprint collections)?
Last but not least, I wanted to clarify the removal of redundant notes such as these — I do believe these annotations are somewhat important, if actually redundant, as they provide interlinks to publishers' pages (which otherwise are completely absent from the bibliography after the text deletion; e.g.: "Titles published by DC Comics include"). One editor offered the idea of putting links into headings, would that be an adequate compromise?
Thanks. 5.18.233.80 (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@5.18.233.80: Before we continue, could you create a username account to make it easier to address you/refer to you? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nightscream Sure. DETVB (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DETVB: Thanks. Let me see if I can address each of your points.
The censorship "The series had censorship issues" is vague and possibly an example of using the passive voice. I've observed that "have" a verb overrused by those who apparently have difficulty composing sentences with a more well-rounded vocabulary ("exhibited", "characterized by", "typified", etc.). The word "issues" itself is a relatively recent euphemism for "problems", "controversies," "scandals," "flaps", etc. By contrast, saying, "Images and text in issues #13–14 and 27–28 were censored." is completely straightforward", to the point, and unambiguous. It also merges the two sentences in a more streamlined manner.
Grant Morrison's claim I'm not sure I understand what you're asking me here. Can you clarify?
Redundant notes If they're redundant, then they shouldn't be there. Wikilinks should be created in instances where terms naturally appear in text. Text should not be included simply to create wikilinks, since that's backwards. As for headings, they should not contain wikilinks, per WP:SECTIONHEAD. There are plenty of wikilinks in the article body, in the References section, and in applicable cases, the See also section. That's more than enough. Nightscream (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream: No more questions from me. Thanks again. DETVB (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hey, I apologize for my edits on the Oliver Wyman article. I was just trying to help improve it with some info on his brother, but my source wasn’t good enough like you said, it was poorly sourced. I’m just letting you know I’m sorry for it. 73.61.22.72 (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@73.61.22.72: No worries. I appreciate the heads-up. And listen: If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of YouTube in the Oliver Wyman article

Hi, just got your message. And just to clear my name on this, no, that wasn’t me. I removed his/her post because I stated in my edit summery that YouTube can’t be used as a source. 2600:1000:B008:1B93:5D48:4C4:15C3:92C (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC) 2600:1000:B008:1B93:5D48:4C4:15C3:92C (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1000:B008:1B93:5D48:4C4:15C3:92C: Okay, just so you know (as I stated before), it's not appropriate to remove another editor's talk page post just because you disagree with their rationale. See WP:TALK for more on this. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (Re: Comics creator photographs)

Hello, I'm french (so please excuse me for my english) and write articles on french Wikipedia. I'm a comics fan and many of my contributions are on this subject. I just wanted to thank you for the photographies of artists and writers of comics that you post on common. It's so useful. They are very good, clear with the date, the location and so on and I copy many of them on Wikipedia. So thank you very much for yor work. And by the way : Happy new Year. With all good wishes, --Olivier Tanguy (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Olivier Tanguy: Hi, Oliver. I understand your English perfectly well. Thank you for your message, and for your compliment. It is very flattering, and very courteous of you. Happy New Year to you too! Nightscream (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Walter Bernstein

On 24 January 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Walter Bernstein, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 22:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Sim's views on women versus his views on gender.

I'll concede, as I suppose it's arguing semantics whether the controversy was over Dave Sim's views on women rather than his broader views on gender relations. But I will say if you haven't read Cerebus in full, I'd consider doing so and think again about whether it's more accurate to say he has controversial views on women or controversial views on gender relations. Certain sections of Cerebus (like the climax of Church and State) focus more on men and write incredibly punishing things, while other sections focus more on women and are more punishing to them, but the consistent theme (including essays like Tangent or his Biblical commentaries) is over how men and women relate to each other in terms of their function in society. Sim has very strong views on what men are, what women are, and accordingly, what their roles in society should be. Even when he's focusing on women (which I maintain he isn't always) it's always with a mind to how they relate to men. It's simplistic to limit his views to just "I don't like women" which is the impression one may get if they haven't read Cerebus in full or read the contemporary media reviewing it as it came out. But I'll concede for now and instead encourage you to look more into Cerebus and the contemporary responses to each portion. (By the way, if you want to comment on whether or not Garth Ennis should be considered a critic of religion, that's on the talk page for discussion.)Lynchenberg (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial Non-Appearances (?)

Hi. First off, thank you for fixing several of my mistakes in the past. I appreciate it. Second, considering what recently happened with Jamie Madrox, I need help. What constitutes a "trivial non-appearance"? I've been removing those ever since I saw another editor remove them. (I don't remember who they were, it may have been an anonymous IP address.) Due to what happened between you and that IP address regarding Madrox's name drop in X2, I'm not sure what to consider a trivial non-appearance or not anymore and whether I should continue to remove them or not. I'm not sure what to think. Blazewing16 (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blazewing16: Hi, Blazewing. My observation is that editors tend to list any unambiguous reference to a character in a film or TV show, which I have no problem with. I don't think I've used the word "trivia" in regards to listing the appearances; Rather, I've used that to describe the level of detail that some editors add to descriptions of these appearances, especially (though not exclusively) when it is not supported by citations of secondary sources, as with this edit of mine. Nightscream (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of breakout characters: Boba Fett passage

Talk:List_of_breakout_characters#intrigued_one_fan,_10_year_old_boy,_maybe Dream Focus 01:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked users

Hi there,

I saw you left a message for Jytdog, whose account has been blocked for some time now. You may want to enable the setting which displays blocked users' names struck through for easy identification (and if you hover over their username you can see if they will be back soon): Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. FYI :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Thanks. Sorry I missed that. Nightscream (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not?

Can you not insert condescending edit summaries? Unnecessary. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: Can you not exhibit such abject laziness? Unhelpful. Nightscream (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
lol whatever. Happy editing, ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of suicides/Crash Holly

Forgot to lowercase alcohol etc, what about this one https://wrestlerdeaths.com/crash-holly-death/ would you repost it and format it? 2021‎ 2607:fea8:f422:ac00:fce4:da2e:c4a0:739 (talk) 19:06, March 2 2021 (UTC)

@2607:fea8:f422:ac00:fce4:da2e:c4a0:739: I looked through that site a bit, and it says on this page that it is a "tribute website". I'm not sure that would pass Wikipedia's Source Reliability policy. However, I did a Google search and found a Bleacher Report article that supports the material. I restored the information in question to the Holly article, and restored Holly to the List article. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Lovece

Can we discuss your removal of content from Frank Lovece? There are a couple of things that strike me as problematic. Just yesterday, you made changes to similar content with exactly the same sourcing, but today you are removing it entirely. It would be nice to know what changed your mind about the content between yesterday and today. More concerning is that you are editing this article at all. Not only are you friends with Frank Lovece, but I just noticed that you are mentioned by name in the Daily Dot article. You clearly should not be removing this content without discussion. If you would prefer to start a discussion on the BLP noticeboard, I don't mind continuing the discussion there. Mo Billings (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mo Billings: In the first place, I'm curious where you established that I'm friends with Frank Lovece.
As far as the edits, I sometimes make technical edits to articles (in my capacity as a WikiGnome or Wikifairy, as they are sometimes called), sometimes in the form of minor copyediting, and then, after examining the article more closely, make more substantial policy-based changes after some consideration. With regard to the Frank Lovece article, after copyedited that paragraph, I read over WP:BLP, in particular WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which I cited in my edit summary. It seemed pretty straightforward and unambiguous. Do you dispute what that policy says, or my application of it? If so, we can certainly discuss it. Nightscream (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made an assumption based on what I had read in that Daily Dot article. Perhaps I should not have, but it's easily resolved. Are you friends with Frank Lovece? Mo Billings (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not to answer any questions related to attempts by the Daily Dot, or anyone else, to "out" Wikipedia editors. Nightscream (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I'll let the Arbitration Committee deal with it. Mo Billings (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bao (film)

Hello, just wanted to let you know that I re-edited the small change I made since "language barrier" is repeated twice, but I kept it singular instead of plural as you noted. Just for future reference though, I believe "language barrier" can also be used as a count noun (see the plural forms of the word on Wiktionary and Wikipedia). Thanks again for your contributions. P.S. This is my first time using a talk page, so apologies if anything is formatted incorrectly. Nephelephant (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nephelephant: Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:HEAD/MOS:SECTIONCAPS

Hi! Per your recent edit on Gigi Hadid, I've scoured MOS:HEAD to try and find where the capitalization issue comes into question, but for some reason (possibly morning brain) I can't find it - would you mind pointing it out to me? Thank you!--Bettydaisies (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bettydaisies: I'm not sure if the content MOS section in question changed (I've been citing it for many years now), or the redirect link or shortcut changed somehow, but it now appears to be MOS:SECTIONCAPS.
And since we're asking questions, may I ask why decided to engage me in discussion four hours after you reverted the edit? Discussion edits in dispute is certainly in the spirit of Wikipedia's prescribed methods of dispute resolution. Reverting during or before that hardly is. :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I posted on your talk page about seven minutes after reverting the edit. WP:BRD is generally the policy I've been following, but I could see how your edit might not count for WP:BOLD.
Regarding the MOS - "further" appears to still be the first word in the heading, which according to styling, is capitalized. Is there a detail I'm misunderstanding here? If you would prefer, however, I'd be happy to ask another editor for clarification. Thank you.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bettydaisies: Sorry. It says, "18:05" above at the end of your first message. The article edit history pages must be using a different time zone than the ones used by talk page message timestamps. I apologize for my mistake.
As for the heading, the first word is the word "present." The word "further" comes after it. Nightscream (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem, I understand. Thank you for the explanation :)--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bettydaisies: Addendum: This was pointed out to me after our chat: The opening sentence of WP:SECTIONHEAD states:
Section headings should follow all the guidance for article titles (above), and should be presented in sentence case (Funding of UNESCO projects in developing countries), not title case (Funding of UNESCO Projects in Developing Countries).
That's why your search for the relevant text (and mine, for that matter), didn't turn out the reference to the word "capital". It's because it's explained at the wikilinked "sentence case". Nightscream (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that definitely explains it. Thank you for your help!--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fugitives from justice who are no longer sought

Hi, I haven't heard from you in a while. How have you been? I myself have my hands full with edting. Davidgoodheart (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Still breathing. Still editing. :) Nightscream (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, do you think that you could help me with adding entries to missing person cases' lists? I have my hands full with editing and could really use some help and would very thankful to get some. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidgoodheart: Okay. Tell me what you need. Nightscream (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! you can start by adding John Darwin to the List of fugitives from justice who are no longer sought. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidgoodheart: Okay. What's the citation for that addition? Nightscream (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Darwin who was a British former teacher and prison officer disappeared after he was seen paddling out to sea in his kayak on 21 March 2002, at Seaton Carew as he was evading the law after faking his death.<ref>{{cite news|title=Sea search for Missing Canoeist|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1887151.stm|date=2002-03-22|access-date=2007-12-09|publisher=[[BBC News]]}}</ref> After Darwin had resurfaced in 2007 he was then captured and we arrested and he and his wife were charged with fraud.<ref>{{Cite web|title='Canoe Man' John Darwin charged - CNN.com|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/08/john.darwin/?iref=hpmostpop|access-date=2021-03-20|publisher=CNN}}</ref> After being convicted on 23 July 2008 both John and Anne Darwin and were each sentenced to more than six years in prison.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7520803.stm|title= John & Anne Darwin sentenced to jail|publisher=BBC| date=23 July 2008|access-date=24 July 2008}}</ref> Both John and Anne Darwin have now been released on probation. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidgoodheart: Do you have a cite for that last sentence?
Btw, I put the nowiki tag around the citations above so that they don't show up at the bottom of this page. Nightscream (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nightscream, here is a citation that you can use for the last sentence. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tees-12214355. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidgoodheart: Done. Nightscream (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your last edit, good job! Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks again for your help. Is it okay that next time that I ask you to add an entry to a list that you would be able to get the information from the article that needs to added. For me to supply all that information takes almost as long as it does for me to add an entry by itself. Davidgoodheart (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David, at some point I think you need to try to make those edits yourself. It's not hard. All you have to do is learn by observing and imitating. It's how I learned everything from how to render text in boldface to how to add tables to articles. Take the List of Pawn Stars episodes article, which I created. Wanna know how I created those tables? I'll give you a hint: If you asked me to create a table from scratch using hmtl, without looking at any other article, I wouldn't be able to. I simply went to a similar article, and copied the table from there, and switched the info in the right places. That's how I added the previous entry you asked me to add: I went to the article, and looked to see what markup for an entry looked like. I noticed that when I looked an entry, like this one:

|-
|1806
|[[Fra Diavolo]]
|34
|{{nowrap|{{Flag|France|1806}}}}
|Diavolo whose real name was Michele Pezza and was nicknamed "Brother Devil" was a famous guerrilla leader who was wanted for crimes<ref>Alexandre Dumas, ''The Last Cavalier: Being the Adventures of Count Sainte-hermine in the Age of Napoleon '' (New York: Pegasus, 2007)</ref> and in August 1806 while running from the law had fled eastwards over the mountains. Diavolo was captured in November 1806 and then sentenced to death.<ref>Gleijeses, p. 125; Colletta, II, pp. 42–43; Lister, pp. 51–52.</ref>
|-

...there was a repeating pattern, in which the one constant piece of info was a pipe divider followed by a hyphen: |-. Thus, all I had to do was copy and paste the series of pipe dividers in between those two that were followed by hyphens, which formed the architecture for each entry's parameters (and by extension the table), and replace the values (the information given in each parameter) with the ones for the new entry. That's it.

So now I encourage you to dive in yourself! You can do it. :-) Nightscream (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Ranch dressing has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: The material in question was properly paraphrased. Thus, there was no copyright infringement, nor any need for a license. Your empty threat is meritless. Nightscream (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you are incorrect. There is quite a bit of overlap with the source webpage. Here is a side by side comparison. Overlapping text is shown in bold. Your addition:

Endeavoring to keep his work crews happy, he created a salad dressing recipe made with buttermilk and mayonnaise, to which added herbs and spices such as garlic, onion, pepper, and parsley. ... renamed it Hidden Valley Ranch, a guest ranch that offered offering fishing, riding, hiking, and other outdoor activities to visitors. ...Kelley’s Korner, a store at Hollister Avenue (now State Street) and La Cumbre Road, was selling small packages of the dried herbs and spices to be mixed with mayonnaise and buttermilk, which was so popular with customers that it sold over 140 units in one two-day period. ...Henson began a mail order business at the ranch, selling the packages for 75 cents apiece, eventually relegating every room in his home to the oepration. By the mid-1960s, the guest ranch, which was never a great success financially, had been completely taken over by the mail order business. By the late 1960s, the Hensons orders were coming in from all 50 states and more than 30 countries. By the early 1970s, Henson realized that the operation was too big to keep running it at the ranch, which would remain its corporate headquarters. For a time, the dressing mix was blended at Griffith Laboratories in San Jose then shipped down to Los Angeles to be packaged in a 65,000-square-foot facility at the rate of 35,000 packets every eight hours.

Source:

Henson had come up with the recipe while trying to keep his hungry work crews happy in Alaska. The dressing was made with buttermilk and mayonnaise and was enlivened with herbs and spices such as garlic, onion, pepper, and parsley. ...Hidden Valley as a guest ranch, offering fishing, riding, hiking, and other outdoor activities. ...Kelley’s Korner, a store at Hollister Avenue (now State Street) and La Cumbre Road, was selling small packages of the dried herbs and spices and could not keep them on the shelves. In one two-day period, the store sold more than 140 packages. ...He began a mail order business at the ranch with packages selling for 75 cents apiece. It was not long until the operation had taken up every room in the family home. By the mid-1960s, the guest ranch, which had never done all that well financially, had been completely taken over by the mail order business. By the late 1960s, the Hensons were filling orders from all 50 states and more than 30 countries. By the early 1970s, Hidden Valley Ranch dressing had grown much too big for its home. Processing had to move offsite, and the ranch became the corporate headquarters. For a time, the dressing mix was blended at Griffith Laboratories in San Jose then shipped down to Los Angeles to be packaged in a 65,000-square-foot facility at the rate of 35,000 packets every eight hours.

— Diannaa (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Quite a bit of overlap" does not constitute copyright infringement, nor does it preclude proper paraphrasing, which my edits were. I made a point of changing the wording, where possible, so that it was not verbatim. The degree to which this was possible, however, was limited by the straightforwardness of the material. There's only so many different ways to compose a simply worded sentence. Bottom line: the material was properly paraphrased, and your take on this was, to put it kind, an overreaction, as was that other editor who called this "vandalism." Your empty threat is meritless. Nightscream (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but your interpretation of our copyright policy is flawed, and the above is certainly a violation. Feel free to get a second opinion if you like.— Diannaa (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. Yours is simply a different viewpoint, and your reaction to my edit was an overreaction, plain and simple. Nightscream (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have your talk page on my watchlist, Nightscream, I hope you don't mind me weighing in here. To my mind, paraphrasing is saying the same thing in different words. Replacing a few words or phrases in a block of source text may be generally sufficient to avoid accusations of copyright violation or plagiarism, but it isn't paraphrasing (even if it is a common practise here). The final sentence in Diannaa's example is word-for-word the same. Is this type of "paraphrasing" something you regularly do? Mo Billings (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to look through my edit history to see how I paraphrase material from sources, then by all means, feel free to do so. Nightscream (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking if you regularly copy complete sentences from sources. I don't think that's a inappropriate question in the circumstances. So, is this type of "paraphrasing" something you regularly do? Mo Billings (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Misanthropic Bitch for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Misanthropic Bitch, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Misanthropic Bitch until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Pawn Stars episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloody Sunday.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox for you

I wonder whether {{User imm}} fits you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Pawn Stars episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ford Model A.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Allegra de Fontaine

Does Valentina Allegra de Fontaine#In other media seem like a case where we need a single subsection? 2601:243:1C80:6740:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:243:1C80:6740:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9: No. I've removed that subheading. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Page

I assume it was accidental, but you might want to be more careful to avoid misgendering in edit summaries. Just an FYI. Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I think I'm careful enough as it is, which is going to result in some mistakes here and there. A minor blip in an edit summary is nothing to worry about, since the only ones who would raise a stink over it, and ignore the bulk of my trans-supporitve edits, including pronouns, would PC snowflake weenies, and I don't think reasonable people like you and I have to worry about them. Hell, I don't even know if any of those losers edit Wikipedia. Thanks, buddy. :-) Nightscream (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this edit misgendered Page three timed in the article text. I really would suggest that you be more careful. Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Sorry, I missed that. You only mentioned edit summaries, which are more inconsequential. Thanks for pointing out the ones in the article itself. Nightscream (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Real World: Back to New York

This is my source for Rachel Braband being from Orland Park, Illinois,

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044884/

Even in the RW RR Casting Special, it also mentioned her being from that area. Themanilaxperience (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out to me. Unfortunately, websites user-generated content, including imdb, are not considered reliable under WP:USERG. Nightscream (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sentient

Sentience does not imply intelligence. Saying that something is sentient only implies that it's conscious.--Countryboy603 (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Countryboy603: In science fiction, the word "sentience" is sometimes used interchangeably with "sapience", "self-awareness", or 'consciousness' Source. It's the word commonly used to refer to conscious living beings, as on, for example, Babylon 5. It's more than appropriate for the passage in question, and your insistence on changing that passage, as indicated by your persistent edits to that word and other words in that sentence, appears to be motivated more by either a desperate desire to change something, anything in it, whether because of spite, a need to participate, or the intent to troll. If your sole concern was that one word, then why did you then pivot to adding the fact that the character is anthropomorphic? All of this is unnecessary. The passage only needs to explain an essential fact to the reader, and any further details can be gleaned by the reader at the character list article that describes him in greater detail. Please stop. Nightscream (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kalibak AfD

Hey you a fan of Jack Kirby? I ask because of an AFD'd classic character is threatened and wonder if you could have the know how to improve it? A certain son of Darkseid. Jhenderson 777 03:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhenderson777: Well, comics articles are among the three or four major topics on which I edit, if that's what you mean, though I haven't done a lot of editing on the Kirby article in particular. If it's something I can help with, sure. Just link me to the page you need my help with. Nightscream (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is Kalibak. :) Jhenderson 777 11:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jhenderson777: Done. I said "keep". Nightscream (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ok you might want to mention this conversation. I wasn’t sure you were going to vote and all and that wasnt an intention of mine. They could take it as canvassing. It’s ok you voted and all though. Just being cautious. An editor also seemed to contest your vote I see. So if your stance is keep. Let’s hope we can find non “passive” articles. Jhenderson 777 17:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jhenderson777: There are, as I recall, four criteria to be met in order to be considered a violation of WP:CANVAS. As long as you adhered to those guidelines, you should be okay. Nightscream (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Cavendish

I didn't cite the fact that people survive polio for >38 years because it's too obvious - goes in the everyone knows category. Some people die of measles, but most go on to live a normal life. I'd say you need a citation to suggest that life expectancy is normally lower. See the details I left in the Talk section.

Whoever originally did the wording presumably made a mistake, confusing "polio patient" with "iron lung patient", so I switched it to the latter.

So by changing it back you're stating that polio patients normally die a lot younger than the general population, which isn't true until, as you say, you cite it. You've caused distress to the daughter of a polio patient, who originally alerted me to the error - so please back up what you're saying, as I can't even give her your name.

Simple information on polio can be found here:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/polio/

Thanks, Frank. Fjleonhard (talk) 05:24, May 12, 2021 (UTC)

@Fjleonhard: Wikipedia's content is governed by its various policies and guidelines, so when editorial conflicts arise, they should be discussed in light of those principles, and not "distress" that you say I caused to some unnamed individual off-site that I've never met.
If you focused on that, it would not only make it easier for you to communicate with editors with whom you develop disagreements in general, it would have made the issue with the Cavendish article in particular easier to address: Specifically, I took a closer look at the cited source, and it says Robin Cavendish was "one of the longest-lived responauts", and not one of the longest-surviving polio patients. I don't know how I made that mistake when I created the article, and I'm frustrated that I can't figure out how that happened. In any event, I apologize for my mistake. I've corrected the article. Thanks for bringing the matter to my attention. Nightscream (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People v. Turner

I saw that you reverted my edit to this article from May 14, suggesting that I introduced unsourced material. I did not make this up. I was just reverting the removal by a user who, so far, has not made a positive contribution to Wikipedia.

The sentence has been there since February 3, 2020. Since then, you have made several edits to the article, apparently without deeming it necessary to remove the sentence. On June 5, 2020, you have even edited that same sentence.

International media attention is mentioned in the main article, so it does not seem unreasonable to leave the sentence in. Keesal (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Keesal: Let me see if I can address each one of your arguments one by one.
I did not suggest it. I stated it outright. You added material with a citation in violation of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, et al. Whether the material in question was an original passage that you composed yourself or something written by someone else whose subsequent removal you reverted is completely irrelevant to this point. You're suggesting that if your addition of the material is merely a revert, then the policies in question do not apply. This is a non sequitur. The policies in question are not specific to whether material is original or reverted.
Nor do the policies have anything to do with whether you "made it up". The issue is the presence or absence of a citation. Not whether you fabricated the claim.
How long the material has been in the article is also immaterial. Passages in an article do not become "not a policy" violation when it goes undetected for some specified amount of time. The Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident, to point to one precedent, occurred when defamatory material about a living person, unsupported by citations of reliable sources, was added to a Wikipedia article, and went undetected for four months, and when it was detected, it was when it was discovered by a friend of the article subject, rather than a member of the editing community. Does this mean that that material was okay for inclusion?
Yes, I edited the passage on June 5, 2020. And if you look at what that edit was, you'll see that was I did was remove uncited material from it --- which is exactly the same policies/guidelines I was following yesterday. What's your point? That I didn't notice at that point that the mention of the international attention garnered by the case was already mentioned in the opening line of the Lead's fifth paragraph, which was is actually supported by a citation of a reliable source? Yes, I'm not perfect. I'm not all-seeing, all-knowing, so sometimes, I miss things at first glance, or I come to form an opinion or viewpoint over time. So what?
The point is, the information is already given in a passage, with great contextual detail, in a properly integrated paragraph in the same section, so adding a second mention of this before hand, with less detail, and tacking it onto the end of a paragraph further up in that section, is both redundant, and an example of poor writing. This is not falsified simply because I didn't notice it to decide upon it months earlier. If you want to counter this viewpoint, then do so on the basis of evidence or reason, or with reference to policy, or principles of good writing. Nightscream (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

White House Press Corps

See WH Press Corps talk page... so we don't engage in edit wars and we can define what former "notable" correspondents are. DoctorTexan (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are already engaging in edit warring right now, by beginning a talk page discussion, and then reverting the passage yet again right after beginning that discussion. Reverting during an edit discussion is edit warring, by definition. For someone with just over 100 edits under his belt who's already been blocked for policy violations, you seem bound and determined to continue on this path. Nightscream (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to argue about the past, I am moving forward. You asked for a source, I provided one. You also demanded that I add him to the "notable" former correspondents to which I disagree with. So I took it upon myself to open a discussion with the community on the talk page regarding the definition of notable. I would ask that you not assume what my path will be. I am trying to get a consensus with the community and I think that is fair given the standard when two individuals have a different outlook. It's not edit warring to give you the source you asked for and correct the change. DoctorTexan (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The other day when we began discussing the White House correspondents article I didn't know how to properly convey what I was trying to say. Thankfully that admin helped explain it for me. But the namecalling and accusing you of certain behaviors was not okay and I am deeply sorry. I hope that you can see by my edits that I am trying to be a different man that I was in the past. I appreciate your suggestions and I took them to heart and made the edits you suggested. My comments to you were not Wikipedia: AGF and they were not the kind of man I want to be so I am sorry. DoctorTexan (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorTexan: S'okay. It takes a big person to apologize, and I genuinely appreciate it. Don't sweat it. I'm glad we were able to subsequently discuss it and come to an accord about the article. Look forward to collaborating with you in the future. :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help: Courtney Stodden

Hey, Jc. Could you put a substantial protection on Courtney Stodden? She came out as non-binary, as reported on April 14, and prefers using singular they pronouns, a point that has been added to the article, with citations, but for the past five weeks, various IP editors (using both Type 5 and Type 6 IP address accounts), have been persistently changing the pronouns back, and ignoring the various messages with which I've attempted to communicate with them on those IP talk pages. Can you protect it for a month or so? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's been protected several times, trying PC1. - jc37 09:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: What's PC1? Nightscream (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Pending_changes_protection - jc37 13:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: Oh, okay, I didn't see that yous said, "Trying" above. I thought at first you said, "Try" -- as in, you were telling me to try to it. You were saying that you were trying it now. Right? Okay, thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like, take a look at Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes. If you feel that you understand the page and can follow the directives there, I could add you to "pending changes reviewers". Please let me know what you think. - jc37 16:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: You mean for just that article? If so, sure. Nightscream (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, It would be granting that to you as a user-right, so you would be able to on any pending changes article. - jc37 17:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: I'm not sure what it looks like or what it involves, but I'll give it a shot. Who has the power to grant that status? All administators? Nightscream (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, any admin. If you are interested, just read over Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes and let me know what you think. - jc37 17:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37: I've read it, but like I said, I'm not clear on what it will look or feel like on an interface level. So let's try it. Nightscream (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, added you. You should see PC edits highlighted in edit histories. If you have any questions about it, please feel free to ask me (or any other admin, obviously : )
And of course, as anything else, if you decide this isn't for you, any admin can remove without needing to check with me. - jc37 18:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jc, can we please put an extended protection on Courtney Stodden? The vandalism/disruptive edits to her article are continuing persistently. Nightscream (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected it.
There was a weirdness when I tried to do it at first (made it seem like it didn't happen), so I did it again, but now that I look at the log, there are two entries. But anyway, done for now. - jc37 15:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: Thanks! Nightscream (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham City

While I apologize for not having added references to the Gotham City Police Department ever since the page got merged to Gotham City due to an AFD consensus where that fact slipped my mind, I'd like to let you know that I did not add the description for the unnamed mayor in question. That was done by someone else. I just wanted to let you know that. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rtkat3: I apologize. I see now I should've examined the diff more closely. Sorry about that. Nightscream (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I forgive you for the misunderstanding. In the meantime, perhaps you can add some sourced information to the Gotham City Police Department section in light of the merging I just mentioned. --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read a lot of Batman, and have enough on my plate right now. Nightscream (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 93

Would you be nice to check or make changes I made to Flight 93. I have taken it too talk page. Also, I fixed a minor error you left on Betty Ong’s article.86.8.200.101 (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to find/add sources for the claim that Rothenberg was the passenger who was stabbed and killed, according to Tom Burnett. I was unable to add a link to the flight 93 book; I was wondering if you could help or correct any mistakes I have made.86.8.200.101 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@86.8.200.101: I've detailed my changes in my edit summaries. Thanks for adding the material that I was able to confirm. Nightscream (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you reason with MONGO or undo their revision back to yours; in the edit they reverted back to, the Jarrah calling girlfriend section is written a bit clumsy and it deleted valuable information you verified from me about Rothenberg.86.8.200.101 (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps take it to their talk page or the article talk page? 86.8.200.101 (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems you already did it, but in the event he wishes to revert, let's try to talk about it here, and then move it to that article's talk page if necessary:
@MONGO: I did not see any bare urls in the article, as you described, but even if I or someone else accidentally neglected to format a ref in the form of a proper inline citation, doing a blanket revert of that and all the other edits I made to the article, as you did, is not the proper solution, FA or not, and I'd think that a veteran editor such as yourself should know that. If I erred, or if I misunderstood your edit summary, I apologize. Can you clarify your view, and work with us to effect proper edits regarding the material in question? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, minor error in your paragraph section about Burnett, you wrote that Burnett and the group were planning to “crash” the plane; the transcript on BFF says they were going to “retake” the plane.86.8.200.101 (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out, I haven’t undid MONGO’s edit; I can’t due to a new sudden edit by someone to a website link. Could you undo the edit, as I haven’t got an account?86.8.200.101 (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I should've looked more carefully at that editor's IP number.
Regarding the transcript, this is the passage in question that I was paraphrasing, which I have copied and pasted here from the source:

They’re talking about crashing this plane into the ground. We have to do something. I’m putting a plan together.

Also, two other things:
* First, let's keep all messages related to the United 93 article in this section, as is customary on Wikipedia. You don't need to create a new section/heading for each message.
* Second, editors who intend to do more than just a one-time only edit are expected to create a username account. It's free, takes only seconds, it allows your location to be more anonymous, and it makes it easier for others to address you and refer to as an individual. Would you consider it? :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have undo the edit and added some sources for the “Mayday!” paragraph.86.8.201.86 (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the “they’re talking about crashing” is referring to the hijackers. In the last call, Burnett is quoted as saying, “We’re going to take back the airplane.” The passengers had lot to live for; why would they retake the plane only to crash it off their own accord.213.104.124.50 (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because they had been informed of the other planes that had crashed into the World Trade Center, and realized the hijackers were going to use United 93 to kill more people at a similar target, and decided to either retake the plane, or crash it, to save lives. Nightscream (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not many people seem to know, but some portions of the CVR were released for the 15th anniversary. I have added a link to an FBI website where the tape is played. I don’t know if any other source for it exists. Please help remove any writing I made on what portions were released, as I just put that in, to specify what parts were played.213.104.124.144 (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet has undid my edit; however, the FBI website in question has been linked before on many other articles, and I still think it’s significant that the CVR was partially released in 2016.https://www.fbi.gov/video-repository/investigation-of-flight-93.mp4/view213.104.124.144 (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help with the FBI weblink I did on 18:00, 21 June 2021? It’s uses some recording of the CVR.213.104.124.144 (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an edit at that time. Can you provide the diff?
Also, could you create a username account? It would be easier to communicate that way. Nightscream (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was in the aftermath section: “As of 2021, the audio recording has not been made available to the general public. Only family members, investigators, and those involved in related court cases had listened to its content and the various pitches and inflections. Several portions of the tape were publicly released on September 9, 2016, including the high pitch noise on the plane, Jarrah's announcements, sound of breaking glass and the final seconds of the tape, which stop at the moment of the crash.<ref>https://www.fbi.gov/video-repository/investigation-of-flight-93.mp4/view</ref> 213.104.124.144 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Airlines_Flight_93&oldid=1029734133

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Airlines_Flight_93&diff=prev&oldid=1029734133

Here it is.

213.104.124.144 (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. What help do you need with it? Nightscream (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not many people seem to know, but some portions of the CVR were released for the 15th anniversary. I have added a link to an FBI website where the tape is played. I don’t know if any other source for it exists. You can remove any formal writing I made on what portions were released, as I just put that in, to specify what parts were played, as just writing some portions were released in 2016 is fine.213.104.124.144 (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you wrote that above. However, I read the linked webpage, and while it contains details about the recording, it does not appear to mention the information you described about who has listened to it, the anniversary, etc. Nightscream (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those bits can be removed if you see fit; only that the portions were released.213.104.124.144 (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should add the information that is actually supported by the cited source. I also request that you include the complete publication info in the cite. You can look at some of the citations I've filled out in my own edits for an idea of how to do so. Nightscream (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doing the edit to FBI link; I kept it more simpler and removed another link to Flight 175 as it’s already been linked in the page. You can add the link properly if you want, as I don’t have time.213.104.124.144 (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO has undid revision again. Hasn’t responded to your reply; recommend restore my revision and ask him again for discussion and take to talk page.213.104.124.144 (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. Please stop creating new sections for individuals messages. We're talking about the United 93 article, so please keep your messages on that topic in this section.
2. You again put uncited material into the section. The page you cited does not say anything about portions of the audio being released to the general public on September 9, 2016, or any other date. If it does say this and I missed it, please point out to me where it says this. Otherwise, please stop adding material not supported by the cited source.
3. The "bare url" MONGO incorrectly referred to was the simple url citation you included with your edit. However, that is not what a bare url is. A bare url is a url placed into the article text without ref tags, which is not what you did. I think what he meant to say was to please include full publication info for the cite, which is the same thing I mentioned above, but which you apparently ignored. The article is, after all, a Featured article, though in truth, all citations should include the full publication info, regardless of the article's status. Nightscream (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna leave the FBI link for now, until I can find a better source for it; also one reason why I made the changes, to the flight section, which I admit isn’t perfect (they need some work and perhaps better sources) is that some of the writing is formal. In particular, the words “purposely keyed the microphone so sounds of the struggle would be heard by officials on the ground” is copied directly from Tom McMillan’s book. Also, MONGO (who has reverted your own edit again) seems to be ignoring the fact or is otherwise ignorant I have taken some of these changes or discussion to the article talk page. I still think what you confirmed about some of the changes can be kept and suggest we change it back to your last revision until we can resolve the situation.213.104.124.144 (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expect more to come.213.104.124.144 (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something wrong; MONGO hasn’t responded either to your request for discussion or discussions on the article talk page. Have reverted his edit anyway, based on validations and in one case, plagiarism from Tom McMillan’s book.213.104.124.144 (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the discussion to heart and try to find better sources for any information I find but MONGO seems to have taken a obsession on deleting all my edits on other 9/11 flight articles, especially with the sentences I have tried to make short and simpler and an unnecessary comma on the Flight 175 “see also” paragraph. Forgive me for being a brother but I am starting to think they have some sort of vendetta and are deleting information. Also, the person who edited the flight “purser” section had one of their edits reverted, hence why I changed it back. The Flight 93 section has also been reverted; even though I agree my revision for the Mayday section is probably not a good enough reference, all the changes to the Burnett phone section and the moans heard in the cockpit should still stand as we changed them.80.43.197.240 (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could try starting a discussion with him. If he/she does not respond, perhaps you could invite others to join the discussion, where you can detail some of the more prominent changes you favor, and argue why you think they should be made, and see what they have to say. Nightscream (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:50.72.145.155 and IP talk page blanking

The talk pages of IPs fall under WP:TPO and the other talk page guidelines, including allowing the IP to remove posts should they see fit. Please do not insist that an IP keep a record of every single post ever made to their talk page. Primefac (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: I don't see mention of this at WP:TPO. Can you point out where it says that, or where there was a community consensus reached on that? Nightscream (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OWNTALK (which is further down the page) and WP:BLANKING. Primefac (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Lisa of agents of shield episodes" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lisa of agents of shield episodes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 15#Lisa of agents of shield episodes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gonnym (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham in film

Yes, locations in many different cities were used in filming various Batman movies. However, none of those locations are famous landmarks or otherwise recognizable as being in those cities, EXCEPT for the ones which indicate that Gotham City is actually New York City. The idea that the Burton-Schumacher films take place in a world where there are two Statues of Liberty is balls-out insane. I have the two-disc special editions of ALL of these movies and I'm not afraid of digging through dozens of hours of bonus features and directors' commentaries to find proof that this was the artistic intent.

UPDATE: it looks like I don't have to. The article's own section 6.2: Films is chock full of citations that Gotham City is an alternate NYC in both the Burtonverse and Nolanverse, though with a different area code and some other alterations. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@73.70.13.107: It does not matter if you think it's "insane". The fact remains that your conclusion that the use of the NYSE means that it is intended to be such in the film is your personal interpretation, which as I mentioned on your IP's talk page, is not permitted as a basis for adding material on Wikipedia. Did you read those policies and guidelines I linked you to?
Whether a particular location is "famous" or "recognizable" is subjective. Recognized by who? You? What about the other people who indeed recognized those landmarks, and have mentioned them in analyses of the films? The Chicago skyline will obviously be more familiar to a person from the Chicago area, or who frequently travels to that area, whereas it was not familiar to me, being that I live in New Jersey. As another example, there are plenty of famous New York City landmarks in Richard Donner's Superman, such as the World Trade Center, and the Empire State Building, as well as other common locations familiar to me, like the building that serves as The Daily Planet, because I have frequently traveled to New York City. Hell, the very landmark you mention, The Statue of Liberty, is also seen during Superman's battle with the three Phantom Zone criminals. Does that mean that Metropolis is also an "alternate New York"? We can certainly interpret this for ourselves if we like, but we don't get to add that opinion to Wikipedia, since it's not permitted by the WP:NOR policy.
Yes, that other section has citations. Your addition, however, did not, and did not say the same thing. Indeed, if there was already a section in the article that said the same thing about the city in film, then why would you sandwich another subsection about that in a section about the city's location in comics?
What the In other media section in question says is that different depictions of the city in film have interpreted it in different ways, with the Burton films indeed basing it heavily on New York, whereas the Schumacher ones imagined it as "a cross between 1930's Manhattan and the "Neo-Tokyo" of Akira," and one scene in particular placing it "somewhere on the New England shoreline, possibly as far north as Maine." Christopher Nolan stated that Chicago is the basis of his Gotham, with some cues taken from New York for things like the garbage trucks. Employing multiple sources for fictional settings is common in this way.
Bottom line: these policies and guidelines I described and linked on your talk page must be followed, or else additions that violate them will be reverted, and persistent violation of them tends to result in the violator being blocked from editing. Please do not make that necessary. Please take the time to learn these policies and adhere to them. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoonist: Tools for illustration

Hi Nightscream, I really like the idea of the tools section in Cartoonist, but the reference you've used to support the idea that cartoonists mostly use Bristol board and ink doesn't actually mention Bristol board at all, and appears to be a sales-orientated blog, which probably doesn't meet WP's criteria as a reliable source. I don't doubt you're right in what you say, but it could do with a better reference. I see you're in mid-edit, so I'm assuming this is a half-way stage and don't want to confuse the issue, so I'll back-off and let you edit! Best wishes Elemimele (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele: Hi. I wasn't the one who added that passage originally. I had just removed all the uncited material in the article, and after doing so, I saw that there was a citation for that passage, and restored it. I had not examined the citation to see if it was properly supportive. I did so now, and I see that not only does not mention Bristol board ("typically" or otherwise), but isn't even about cartoonists, but artists in general. I removed that passage entirely. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:MirrorMacCrop.jpg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth borough

Hi Nightscream. I'm doing well, glad to hear from you again. The earlier "New Manhattan" proposal is indeed not mentioned in the NYT piece, although it is in other sources. I thought it would be valuable to mention in the Wikipedia article because it's quite similar to the more recent landfill proposal, and that's why I used the "echoing" language because there is not necessarily a direct inspiration going on. For what it's worth, neither the 1911 proposal not the 2011 proposal actually use the "sixth borough" language, but I figured if we're including one in the article, we should include the other as well.--Pharos (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Useer: Doriden's serial policy violations

Sir. I am considered a person who has a"learning disability", it's not like I am doing anything intentionally, but many people don't understand what I have to go through in this life. You seem to think that I am doing stuff on purpose but I am not. I thought some things were common knowledge. I am going to be taking some assistance from someone who is trying to help me out. I am not a bad person or doing vandalism. Please try to understand and imagine the world I live in. Being learning disabled and handicapped is hell. Try to empathize. Thank you Doriden (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are required to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You repeatedly stated that you would do so, but instead of actually doing so, you have continued to deliberately violate them, while also insulting other editors and telling those who leave polite messages on your talk page not ton communicate with you.
If you really are a retired professional firefighter, as you stated here, then you are obviously able to respect the rules when on someone else's property, and that includes on the Net. None of this is excused by having a learning disability. Try to consider that. Nightscream (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was like several years ago. Ok I understand. Doriden (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was a ff for the city of Newark and fell through the roof of a vacant building. Doriden (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You made your point. I think that we have a couple of things in common, we are both NJ natives and of Italian background. Let's not argue with each other and go back and forth because that accomplishes nothing. OK , people evolve, me telling someone to not contact me was a couple of years ago and I barely knew how Wikipedia worked or even who the person was. Let's put this issue to rest. Thanks Doriden (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if we are from New Jersey.
It does not matter if we are Italian.
The only thing that matters is that you stop violating Wikipedia policy. Period.
The excuses you employ to wave this off are irrelevant to me. You barely knew how Wikipedia worked? Really? Does that include last month, when you were warned for continuing the same type of policy violation?
I'm not fooled by your schtick. So you might as well abandon using it with me. Nightscream (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Jeanette

I replied, but I’ll do it again here. You deleted hours of work. That was 166 fights with two of his real records that are verified by the official record keepers of boxing (boxrec.com). I don’t know what you do around here, but I don’t need advice on how to edit records when I have put in over 230 records and 24,000 fights in the last year. I get you’re busy with whatever you do, but instead of simply mass deleting, maybe you could contribute something to what I did instead of erasing it. I am not going to redo his record so if you have any respect for boxing history, you should revert your reverts as it shows the record of a two time colored heavyweight champion. After you do that I can throw in all the citations to his boxrec that you want over and over, but next time, if you see something you aren’t sure is accurate, you can go out and do a tiny bit of research by first clicking on the external link to his boxing record that was already provided before I made my edits. If it was just his name that your reverted, I wouldn’t be upset. Unfortunately, you deleted a 166 fight career off of Wikipedia for no reason whatsoever as it was done properly. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CaPslOcksBroKEn: Hi, Caps. I appreciate that you do a lot of hard work. However, the material you add to articles has to adhere to Wikipedia policies, and that means that the sources in question have to be cited in the article, where it material in question appears. This is explained at WP:PAIC. Your material lacked those citations, and that's why it was removed, and not because I wasn't "sure it was accurate."
You've been editing for over three years now, and have accumulated over 7,200 edits, so you should know by now that if you want your additions to remain, then it is you who are obligated to make sure that the material in question is supported by proper citations. If you don't know this, then yes, you do need "advice" on it. It is not the obligation of other editors to add citations for you, much less to assume that the material is supported by a link in an article's EL section. You want to add that material? Then you make sure it adheres to WP:V, WP:CS, etc. It is not fair, nor feasible, to obligate others to do that for you. I do add citations to uncited passages here and there where I can, but I cannot be expected to do with every bit of uncited information I find. That's why having each editor take responsibility for the material they want to add to or keep in an article is a far better idea.
What is not a better idea is going onto someone else's property and violating their rules, and attacking them when they inform you of this, as you've apparently been doing you started editing here, a habit you apparently still haven't broken. Nightscream (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, doing the smallest amount of research is not every bit of information. I realize I was very rude in the past and it was uncalled for. Today has not been my best day considering that I drove 5 hours to a different state today because I thought a family member was dying in the hospital. It's not an excuse for being rude, but I hope you can understand the frustration of walking out of the hospital ER with an email informing me that my hours of work and research have been reverted. I honestly do not know what you do on Wikipedia as this is my first encounter with you, but based off how you've gone about reverting edits, I feel like you haven't done very much on the topic of boxing or at least in this capacity. Here's the thing: the inconsistencies that need to be fixed in every proper way are a project in themselves. Here's an example: The link to Floyd Mayweather Jr.s professional boxing record on boxrec.com is only cited in his external links and that is something that needs to be fixed. Now that I have found this inconsistency in a current celebrity's article, if I want to make it follow the rules to a T, I will go in and add it as a reference instead of deleting his record because it is currently improperly cited. I am a human and I make mistakes. I understand that you are not happy to have this encounter on your talk page, but at least in my eyes, this is not close to those two instances over 2 years ago where I was out of line. My apologies. I hope we can avoid such a convoluted situation. If you ever find something from one of my edits that needs proper sourcing, please, from one editor to another, just leave a note on my talk page and I will take care of it.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CaPslOcksBroKEn: It does not matter which topics I have worked on. Editing is governed by adherence to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not personal expertise of the editor. Please see WP:IKNOW for more on this.
If I find material that is uncited or poorly cited --- and I do every single day that I go down my Watchlist --- then I address it according to our editing practices. If I went and did "research" on all those instances, then it would not be "the smallest amount".
Now sometimes when I find an article filled with uncited material, I'll fact tag it, wait a month, and then move it to the talk page. If it's a WP:BLP violation, I'll remove it entirely. Sometimes, if I have the time, I'll go and find a source for it, especially if I think it's something small and easily found. Less often, other occassions, I create new articles, or greatly overhaul or expand existing one. It varies. But the bottom line is, I am not obligated to find sources for material that another editor adds to an article, nor to notify you when I come across such passage. When I see recently-added uncited info to the an article, I revert it (unless it falls into one of the narrow range of examples that don't require a citation, like the synopsis of a released film). If you find such recurring instances across boxing articles, or any other articles, then the best thing to do is roll up your sleeves, and fix it. If it's a too big a job, ask others interested in those articles for help. You can also bookmark them so that if the uncited material is removed, you can always go back to it later to restore it. You can even move that material to the talk page like I do so that it won't be a target of people like me upholding WP:V, WP:CS, etc.
I accept your apology for your previous conduct. It happens to be the best of us. No worries :-) Good luck! Nightscream (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added his proper name with citations. What do you want me to do? I am trying my best to keep the correct information, but I don’t have the time to look everything up. I added the reference and cited it. I want to revert it and add more of the same citations, but I want to avoid an edit war and I’m not trying to have to lose the record for literally no reason. I don’t know where to put a citation for a boxing record because it is something that is never done. You will not find any records with any consistency where there are citations next to them. I’m leaving everything I can think of, but I will add more of the same citation if it helpsCaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CaPslOcksBroKEn: Stop adding entire tables of uncited material to the article. If you continue to revert such material that is not accompanyied by citations, then that material will be reverted, and you risk being blocked from editing. Please do not make that necessary. Citations do not go in the edit summary or in the External links section. They go at the end of the supported material, per WP:PAIC, WP:CS, etc. Please adhere to those guidelines.
In addition, you again added an incorrect spelling of his name, giving it as "Joseph Jeanettei" in the Infobox.
And one other question: Is BoxRec a wiki? Nightscream (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Boxrec is not a “wiki”. It is the OFFICIAL RECORD KEEPER OF BOXING. I hope you’re happy, because I’m done. You have single handedly killed all of my passion for putting fights on Wikipedia. You should have fun going on a spree of deleting boxing records because that is the website we use. It is not a Wiki. Stuff like this never happens there. Go talk to Cassopedia. Squared boxing circle or whatever their names are. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Boxing/MOSGuidelines. This is what these records adhere to. I have to do things slightly different because it doesn’t encompass fighters with newspaper decisions. Have fun deleting records. I hope you manage to erase every piece of work I have ever doneCaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If your "passion" for contributing to a collaborative project is "killed" by being informed that you have to follow the rules set forth by the group you're collaborating with, then that's your fault, my friend, and not the group's. The fact that you convince yourself that it's the fault of the person informing you of those rules merely reflects a poor disposition on your part. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I'd just like to chime in and clarify that the venerable BoxRec has long been what WP, and specifically us at WikiProject Boxing, have used as a source for fight record tables. Mainstream media and even promoters have referenced it too, although I'm unable to dig up sources supporting that at this time. Some parts of it are user-generated, but I'm inclined to believe that only admins are able to edit the actual records. We can look further into this if necessary, as the quality of a source is of course an important WP tenet.
If the disagreement here is simply about correctly citing BoxRec, whereabouts would the ref best be placed? That's a question for User:Nightscream, who may know more about these technicalities than either User:CaPslOcksBroKEn or myself. Let's use Mike Tyson#Professional boxing record as an example—should this ref go immediately under the section heading, or at the end of the table, or somewhere else? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mac Dreamstate: Thank you for joining the conversation, and thanks for the added info on BoxRec. CapsLock already linked me to the relevant MOS page above, and that was more than enough for me. I just needed clarification on it, since I noticed "wiki" links on that page.
Regarding citations, WP:PAIC is fairly clear as to where they should go when it comes to regular prose text. When it comes to tables, however, WP:HEADERS says:

Title headers are often suitable places for reference citations (e.g., to source a specific row or column of data).

However, I've also seen notes placed at the top of sections along the lines of "Unless otherwise indicated, all of the following information comes from WEBSITE X." Either is fine by me. Nightscream (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is by far the most convoluted time waster of a way to go about this. Now that my reverted edits have been buried somewhat behind newer edits, I may not be able to copy and paste the code and instead might have to entirely redo the record if some people weren’t trying to play god over others. Here’s a fun idea you should try, spend a couple hours writing an essay on the “right” way to edit on Wikipedia is, delete it and then do it again. I’m sure you’ll be thrilled wasting time to redo something that there was nothing wrong with (the actual record). You have been condescending and completely disrespectful from the beginning and then after everything, you add the 40 bites of information that was needed in the first place, but don’t touch any of the record to bring it back. Yea….who wouldn’t be passionate to have to deal with that kind of attitude…. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know how I’m expected to be working on records when they’re being deleted. All of my Wikipedia effort and energy has been sucked into a battle of semantics and it has yet to be resolved. If you actually respect any of my contributions as you “said” you did, you would have reverted the record back instead of trying to dig up dirt on me. All professional boxers should ideally have a record table. I ideally shouldn’t have to worry about needlessly having work erased. Many articles suffer from this problem of the boxrec being in external links. That means that those who notice these problems should be fixing them instead of clicking delete on the record and expecting someone to go through the hassle of recreating it CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme tell ya something, Caps, life can be tough. Wear a cup. And a helmet.
And try to keep the whining and the false victimhood to a minimum.
You're a not victim. Not of semantics, or anything else. You knowingly violated a core policy of this website by repeatedly adding entire tables of material to article without inline citations, despite the fact that you've been editing now for three years, and despite the fact that others have been attempting to communicate to you the importance of citations during that time. That has nothing to do with "semantics", and everything to do with the fact that you just jolly well don't feel like following policy. The material in question isn't buried in the Well of Souls, nor do you have to put on a fedora and a bullwhip and arm yourself with the Staff of Ra to retrieve it. Just go into the edit history, isolate the code responsible for those tables, and include the proper citations. And if that's too much work for you, then reconsider whether you're capable of collaborating with others on this project. Nightscream (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are the first and only person to ever demand citations for boxing records and I did not know that this had to be done because I did not know what to read about for it at the time. I have always made the proper adjustments when informed, but I have never run across such an arrogant fake nice guy before. I did the best I could with the information I had. Welcome to boxing Wikipedia, guy, Boxrec.com is not a “wiki” so next time you go around acting like you know it all on new subjects, perhaps you could take some time out of your incredibly busy schedule to realize you don’t know it all.

Next time, perhaps you could get off your high horse and keep your gaslighting and grandiosity to a minimum if you’re capable of collaborating with other humans.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, you are not the greatest at digging up dirt. Those two instances where you accuse me of edit warring and attack someone for reverting them are completely unrelated. The first was fair and I realized it. The second one, I was right, but immature about it. My edits were reverted to false information and you can check the edit history if you want because that’s the truth and you had nothing to do with it so you can stop trying to twist the truth into some narrative that I am a disingenuous ill intentioned editor.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caps, nobody is calling into question your motives as an editor. Us lot at WikiProject Boxing fully support and appreciate your efforts in getting boxing records written up; I had to give up on this same task in 2019, as there are just too many zillions of boxers in the world, past and present. It can get seriously overwhelming playing whack-a-mole with all the tables. Also, you have brought up many good talking points regarding MOS:BOXING, all of which are valid and will be addressed in due course.
It's just that in this case, the reference issue was an oversight from you, along with myself a long time ago; I knew at some point I was going to have to start turning those external links into refs, but I kept putting it off. User:Nightscream is only making sure adherence to WP policy is maintained. It's unfortunate that some of your edits got misplaced in the process of editing/reverting, but surely they can be retrieved from the edit history and restored using the correct cite methods?
You mentioned earlier about matters in your personal life—my sympathies go out to you. Please understand that nobody here is out to get you or ban you. Plenty of times I've had to adjust my editing style in-bulk upon being made aware of a mistake I was perpetuating. User:Nightscream is absolutely correct in that large tables of information, as boxing records are, need to be referenced. I'll bring it up at the Project and make an MOS update when I have time.
I would also recommend reading the section at WP:CIVIL, where it says to "Avoid editing while you're in a bad mood". As a fellow editor and boxing fan who supports your work, I wholeheartedly urge you to take a break from editing and return when you're not feeling so low. Take as long as you need—I've been caretaking the Project since 2015, so it's staying fine as it is. Your wellbeing is more important than a few WP articles, but you're also important to us as a valued editor; as in, don't get banned over something like this. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CapsLock on July 20: "No. Boxrec is not a 'wiki'."
From BoxRec's General disclaimer: "This is an extremely dynamic Wiki-based website--meaning that any BoxRec Boxing Encyclopedia page can be edited at any time."
So much for "BoxRec is not a 'wiki'." Nightscream (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So in the three years in which you've accumulated over 7,200 edits, not only have you not yet learned:
* That material has to be accompanied by citations of reliable sources placed in the text per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, WP:PAIC, WP:PSTS, et al.
* That citations do not go in section headings
* That only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized in headings
* That the proper number of line breaks between paragraphs and sections is one. Not two, and certainly not four
* That when using ref name tags, you don't include the full publication info of a source in every citation of it after the first one, as the whole purpose of the ref name tag is to make this unnecessary
...but now we see that the very website you've repeatedly bloviated about as justification for violating policies on citations, is one in which you haven't done the least bit of cursory investigation. It's difficult to see how, with all the obvious signs of that website being wiki-based, that one could spend as much time on it as you ostensibly have without learning this. Looking through a few pages on that site, and finding that it's wiki based, took me no more than a few minutes. Apparently not doing any at all took you no time at all.
But oh no, that doesn't reveal a poor attitude on your part towards getting the facts right, towards taking care in doing even cursory research, or toward leaning and adhering to the rules and practices maintained by the members of a collaborative project that you want to participate in, right? LOL. Nightscream (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going forward, I think it's time BoxRec was brought to the attention of WP:RSN. It's been previously discussed in 2011 and 2015, but the outcomes were inconclusive. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've read my mind. I've already started a discussion on the WikiProject Boxing talk page, and I'm going to place the link at RSN too momentarily. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hughes article

If readers really cared, they'd just read the interview that's linked. There are multiple parts in this article that are excessively long for no gain.

Also, "in a manner similar to" is a good example of the wordiness that I'm trying to fight. "In the manner of" and "similar to" basically mean the same thing. You remind me of the "Kung Fu Panda" movies, where they call one character "Master Shifu" (aka "Master Master").136.49.32.166 (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were already blocked the last time you pulled this routine. Now you're back, using another Austin, Texas-based IP. When are you going to learn? Nightscream (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to what happened back in May, those other editors were wrong, and the article in question now follows the style/content that I sought.136.49.32.166 (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're referring to, as there were no edits to the article in May. I'm referring to your disruptive editing and troublemaking "Real_Power"_poster in April 2019, which ulitmately resulted in your being blocked. Nightscream (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Morales

Superheroes are fictional by definition. It should either be fictional character or superhero, not both. It doesn't sound right. Maybe you should think about that. You are too quick to revert. --Blazing Phoenix (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blazing Phoenix: Three different editors diagree with you. And reverting against more than one editor is a blockable offense. Maybe you should think about that. Nightscream (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about just superhero? Is it OK for you? --Blazing Phoenix (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blazing Phoenix: Fictional characters are generally described as such in the opening line of their articles, quite logically, as standard practice, from Harry Potter to Jabba the Hutt to Homer Simpson. For articles on comics characters, it is common to substitute "character" with "superhero" (as with Green Man), or "supervillain", as in Equus, etc. Removing the word "fictional" from that opening line isn't just a deviation from a common practice; it's simply not reasonable to omit the word(s) that tells the reader with the most straitforward clarity what the article subject is. Nightscream (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since when this is common? 'Fictional' superhero doesn't make any sense. There are no real life superheroes. --Blazing Phoenix (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blazing Phoenix: Well, I've been editing Wikipedia since 2005, for one, and comics are perhaps the biggest area I work on. And I've single-handedly brought four different articles to Good Article status, two of which are comics-related. To some degree, perceptions and experiences may vary from editor to editor, I suppose.
Again, the use of the qualifier is not meant to distinguish fictional superheroes from real-life superheroes. It's to inform the reader that the subject of the article is a fictional character, as with the examples I gave you above. "Superhero" or "wizard" or "private detective" or whatever is just a further description of what kind of character he/she is. Nightscream (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Superheroes are known to be fictional there is no need to say that. It is not encyclopedic this way. If you want further description you can say fictional character 'and' superhero, not a combination of both. --Blazing Phoenix (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blazing Phoenix: You already said that. And I already replied to it by pointing out that three other editors disagree with you. Nightscream (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ahem. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request

I suggest mentioning the "Prayer Man" theory in Lee Harvey Oswald's article. If you are unaware, the Prayer Man theory is a claim made by Australian researcher Greg Parker and Sean Murphy that Oswald was captured standing on the Depository front steps as a shadowy figure in newsreels of Dealey Plaza during/after the assassination. The shadowy figure is holding their hands in front of them as if praying so the figure got the nick-name "Prayer Man". An argument could be made for putting the theory on the LHO article, especially as it concerns Oswald’s possible whereabouts. To me, looking at it like this, it doesn’t much look like a praying man but rather like a man leaning against the wall on the steps of the Texas School Book Depository with his arms folded over each other. The man looks to be wearing a relatively loose-fitting shirt of some description, though I think he has a rather slight build underneath it. The body language isn’t quite what I would think of with Lee Harvey Oswald, but his build and look are similar-ish as far as the rather grainy images goes. Oswald’s own location inside of the Texas School Book Depository is so disputed that, especially as notes from Nov. 22 indicates he stated that he’d been on the first floor when the motorcade passed the building, and he mentioned “Bill Shelley” outside and that he “watched P. Parade” so that train of thought wouldn’t be entirely impossible. His alleged location, if accurate, wouldn’t quite preclude him from being Prayer Man, though the latter was definitely standing outside. The process of elimination on the other people known to have been out on the steps leaves nobody who could have been Prayer Man, either, which is interesting! In the end though, it’s a slim chance and probably not Oswald. Prayer Man could easily have been someone who’d simply wanted to have a relatively good vantage point from which to view the motorcade and decided to hang out on the front steps of the Book Depository as a result. Regardless of that notion, the man was never conclusively identified – much like the Babushka Lady wasn’t, either, and I bet a few more witnesses slipped through the mazes of the net in that respect.

The argument for main criterion for inclusion on the LHO article is not plausibility, as many of the major theories there are implausible anyway, it is notability, especially as it concerns his whereabouts. I checked and was kinda surprised that this theory was not mentioned there. I'd say that it is one of the current "top ten" theories making the rounds, hence why I think it could be included in, say, the “Other investigations and dissenting theories” section on the Oswald article. I am aware it is a "fringe" theory as it dismisses, out of hand, positive, corroborating evidence in order to accept flimsy evidence placing Oswald elsewhere. But it’s notability is enough, especially unless/until the original films are released, so further analysis could be made to determine any possible identification of the figure. This could be added within the Oswald article, under the last paragraph of the "Other investigations and dissenting theories" section, worded something along the lines of:

Researchers Greg Parker and Sean Murphy have given attention to a man standing on the Depository front steps in the Wiegman and Darnell films during the assassination, called "Prayer Man", named as the man is holding his hands in front of him as if praying. It has been suggested that Oswald was the figure, and Oswald’s wife, Marina also expressed her belief.[1] Researchers have argued that the official record of Marrion Baker and Roy Truly encountering Oswald in the TSBD second floor lunchroom was false and point to an account where Baker originally said he saw a man walking away from a stairway on the 3rd or 4th floor, and Baker testifying taking the 5th floor elevator only just “one or two floors up” after his official Oswald encounter on the second floor, indicating there was a 4th floor encounter.[2] Also noted that on the day of the assassination, Truly was overheard by reporter Kent Biffle, informing Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz (chief of homicide) that he had seen Oswald in “a storage room on the first floor”. Occhus Campbell (the vice President of the TSBD) also told the New York Herald Tribune the same day that he saw Oswald “shortly after the shooting” in the first floor storage room. Fritz even wrote that Truly saw Oswald “immediately after the shooting somewhere near the back stairway”. The storage room on the first floor was located near the back stairway.[3][4] In addition, notes taken down by FBI Special Agent James P. Hosty and Fritz during the first interrogations of Oswald on November 22, indicate that when Oswald was asked to account for himself at the time of the assassination, he claimed that he “went outside to watch P. Parade” (referring to the presidential motorcade), and that he was “out with [William Shelley, a foreman at the depository] in front”. [5] According to postal inspector Harry Holmes, Oswald said that he was at the “front entrance to the first floor” when he encountered a policeman who told him to “step aside”.[6]

80.2.22.32 (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Greetings, Nightscream, I hope this finds you in good health.

FWIW, I am compelled to note that the above editor attempted to add some of this text to the Ike Algens article with the edit summary Rewrite to fit actual original interrogation reports of LHO’s whereabouts. Yes, there were two minor rewrites within the edit, but to limit the summary to those rewrites was entirely misleading. The edit was reverted because none of the text belongs in the Altgens article; only the barest minimum detail wrt LHO's whereabouts at the instant Altgens6 was made is germane. —ATS (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Prayer Man: The Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald By Stan Dane (2015), p. 101.
  2. ^ Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 3, p. 258, Testimony of Marrion L. Baker.
  3. ^ Dallas Police Department file on investigation of the assassination of the President, "Interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald", vol. 4, p. 265.
  4. ^ FBI Report of Capt. J.W. Fritz, Warren Report, appendix 11, p. 600.
  5. ^ Prayer Man: The Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald By Stan Dane (2015), p. 124.
  6. ^ Testimony of Harry D. Holmes, Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 7, pp. 306.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nightscream&oldid=1040333459"