User talk:Nightscream/Archive 4

Archive 1: March 17, 2005 - April 22, 2007
Archive 2: April 26, 2007 - August 10, 2008
Archive 3: August 12, 2008 - December 26, 2009

Gauntlet Merge proposal

I proposed a merge a while back but only two people (besides me) have posted. Having a discussion of 2 against 1 doesn't seem like enough people to establish consensus. If you could please post your opinion here I would appreciate it. I want enough opinions so that I can either merge the articles or end the discussion so that the merge tags are no longer at the top of the articles. Thank you. --Spidey104^contribs 03:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies for not joining the discussion you invited me to. Lots of real life messiness. I'm gonna try to pop around somewhat but, will be alot less frequent than before. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Asgardian

Um... you may want to go over the section you posted there and make sure your links either point to the section in your archives or to the actual dif. I just clicked on one and got your near empty talk page, not the evidence you wanted to show. - J Greb (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, certifying indicates that you have tried and failed to resolve the dispute, whereas endorsing the main summary states that you merely agree with it; no one should use both for the main summary. :) BOZ (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"The dispute" in this case being the whole thing described under the main summary, or any part of it (as far as I'm concerned). No problem on the understanding; you gotta learn sometime, and sometimes the best way to learn is to ask. :) BOZ (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much, although I think the "tried to resolve the dispute" is a key part of certifying the debate (that is, I wouldn't think that someone should be certifying if they just fanned the flames and didn't try to put them out). BOZ (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Rational Response Squad

Hey, Nightscream. Thanks for contacting me regarding the page. Perhaps I was over hasty in deleting some of the intro; it's seem a bit like an advertisement so I paired it down. As for you other concerns, they seem a little off. I gave two sources in connection with "Brian Sapient": the first authenticated the claim that he was a co-founder of the RSS and the second provided his real name. As for "Rook Hawkins", his real name is now common knowledge, but I wanted to be thorough since I expected objections like this so I sourced it nevertheless. I checked the link you posted regarding reliable sources and I couldn't find the words "social," "networking," "MySpace," or "Facebook" anywhere. All I found was a statement that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves," which is exactly what the Facebook page I referenced was: a self-published source by the RSS on the RSS. Finally, given that Brian's real name is found in sources the article already was using, and that the RSS has itself publicized "Rook's" real name, I don't see how the preference for anonymity has any standing. I'm reverting the name info but I'll leave the "mission statement" this time. Eugeneacurry (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is some helpful information from the Society of Professional Journalists on the ethics that should be used in writing. This is not Wikipolicy, nor is it enforceable in any way, but it does provide the basic dos and don'ts that are accepted by media outlets worldwide, from newspapers to paper encyclopedias. Much of it is a condensed version of wikipolicy, and it has often provided me with some very good, plain old common-sense arguments. Hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: In media sections in city articles

Hmm. This is an interesting discussion. I agree that it would be a good idea to broaden exposure of this issue, probably at WT:WikiProject Cities. My search of that WikiProject's talk archives didn't really turn up anything, nor did my search of WikiProject New Jersey's talk archives – although to be fair it's possible I missed something. One interesting discussion I did find was at WP:Featured article candidates/San Francisco, California from back in 2006, where there was a dispute over the inclusion of a paragraph similar to your section, documenting "depictions of the city in media, books, etc." The issue was how to include such information without having an "in popular culture" section that would invited a deluge of pop-culture references and trivia. While it certainly is possible to include the text you support in the Union City, New Jersey article, I think it might be better if you integrated the notable "in media" parts into the rest of the article to avoid a trivia section that could trigger the aforementioned deluge. For example, the editors of San Francisco, California integrated the information into the "Economy" section of that article.

If you want broader consensus on this, I think WT:WikiProject Cities is the place to go – but if you just want to deal with this as it regards to the Union City article, I would be happy to help out with the dispute on the article's talk page. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I still favor WT:WikiProject Cities, but WT:NJ would be just fine with me too. It sounds like you'd prefer NJ, in which case by all means start the discussion there. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

All right then. I started the thread there. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent comment (RSN: Quackwatch)

That was an excellent comment you made here. Thanks. We need more clear thinkers here.-- Brangifer (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI

[1] (see the edit summary) –xeno^talk 04:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Martin Ssempa

Hey stop threatening me. And why on earth are you putting comments on my personal discussion page rather than on the article talk page? I am happy to have a reasoned and civil discussion but I will not tolerate threats. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was being a real idiot over this. I was unintentionally rude to you and was being rather pig-headed. I hope you'll accept my apology. You were of course right to argue the approach you did - it was much more fair-minded than mine. regards. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion at Talk: Union City, New Jersey

Just to avoid any appearance of impropriety, I wanted to alert you to this brief exchange re Talk:Union City, New Jersey#Views_from_easternmost_streets_of_UC. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of "’Til Death Do Us Part"

Jon Dalton

"... Bonaduce kissing Bonaduce on the lips ..."? I'm not sure how to fix this, but it seems odd? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Nightscream! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 453 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Diane Carey - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Kathy Oltion - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Todd Allen Gates - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
J. K. Woodward - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul Levitz, well-known (former) fan

In light of your relatively-recent reversion of my reinstation of an image from The Amazing World of DC showing Paul Levitz (in caricature), I was challenged/asked to provide a rationale for reinstating the image, and have attempted to do so there.

As a (slightly-)briefer set of points, though, in direct response to your edit summary ("Revert. Modern free main image makes use of high-res copyright image under Fair Use dubious; Caricature not the best image to show what he looked like; "Prominent" creator doesn't have article; etc."): I disagree that Fair Use is dubious - AWODC has been out of print and not commercially exploited for more than thirty years, the use of a small subsection of a single page to illustrate Mr Levitz does not conflict with NFCC policy point #2, while the other particularly relevant points (1, 3, 4 and 8) are fulfilled. The caricature (rather than a contemporary photograph) serves a multi-purpose, by demonstrating not just what Levitz looked like, but what he was - as a prominent fanzine publisher - publishing, as well as part of the content of one of the issues of Amazing World of DC. Also, Levitz is the "prominent fan, fanzine publisher, contributor and subsequent professional" I referred to, not Mr Manak.

Fanzines are an oft-overlooked, vital part of comics history, and especially important as sources and references to the people behind them - as Levitz was. His publishing The Comic Reader played an important part in his being hired by DC, and his association with their in-house fanzine AWODC, from which this caricature is taken. It is therefore important as an artifact, as well as specifically illustrating an important individual - then-future Publisher - at his transition from fan to professional. It serves both to illustrate his days (and the now-brief section about his days) as a fan, and to juxtapose with the main image of him "now" - thereby showing the man at the start and arguably-pinnacle of his career. ntnon (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :o) You wrote: "The fact that it was made at the same time as that turning point does not mean that therefore, ipso facto, it shows that turning point. Nor does that fact that it appeared in AWODC... Simply put, a prominent point in his life is not illustrated by any ol' image simply because it was created at the same time."

True, to a point, but the image is one of several from AWoDC illustrating the people-behind-the-fanzine - so it does show that turning point, since it is a caricature produced to illustrate the man recently put to work at DC. It isn't just a drawing produced around the same time, it was produced deliberately to illustrate for DC's fans the faces behind the fanzine. Indeed, the new faces, many of whom had recently 'graduated' from amateur fanzines to the new pro-zines.

"The fact that it is a fanzine-created and fanzine-published caricature of a BLP subject that was himself prominent fan, fanzine publisher, contributor and subsequent professional doesn't justify fair use. A photograph showing him in the fanzine or DC offices would do this. Hell, even a caricature that had some background or setting in the fanzine office might do this. But a caricature of the "floating head", or "lollipop" variety does not."

I understand that a photograph would be better - and I'm seeking one - and I agree that a contextualised caricature might be better, but I fail to see why is automatically better. Would it be more acceptable as an illustration of his career turning point if I left the text in describing him? To contextualise the image?

"It also does not meet the image use policy, as that policy requires non-free images to be no larger than 300 pixels in height or width, whereas that image is 591 x 692px." That can be easily fixed - but is there any point, though..?!

I'll look for a photograph, but I still think that the triple-tie - fanzine-produced/published; AWoDC; Levitz - makes this as good an image of this vital point in his career as is likely to be found (barring a behind-the-scenes at DC's AWoDC photograph): even a contemporary photo would not necessarily illustrate as well his fanzine days. ntnon (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"But there is nothing in that illustration that shows any of that to the reader. No one looking at that image will see, "Oh, it's of a guy at a turning point who's recent been put in charge of..." It just shows a caricature. Nothing more."

Well, I suppose that that's in the eye of the beholder. You could (somewhat torturously) make essentially the same argument for any image - the context will be given not just by the image, but by the caption and the surrounding text. Here, the caption would note the specifics: that it is a caricature of Levitz, by Dave Manak for AWoDC. The text would add the context: that Levitz, prominent early fan and fanzine editor/publisher, was hired by DC and tasked (with others) with producing DC's first (and only) pro-zine, The Amazing World of DC Comics. Anyone then reading the article will see all of this, and recognise the importance of Levitz to fandom; of fandom to Levitz; of AWoDC, etc. And it should be illustrated with... <something>. Something from a fanzine. Something related to Levitz. Perhaps a Comics Reader or an et cetera. Perhaps a photo of young Paul Levitz. Perhaps a caricature of Levitz, as published in AWoDC. (Indeed, a cover of AWoDC would presumably be seen to be a reasonable illustration of this period in Levitz's career - but that would be one step removed from also illustrating pointedly his involvement, which a caricature of him adequately does.)

"A photograph is a more realistic representation of something with less room for subjectivity. A caricature, by its very nature is not, and text will not change the fact that the caricature does not describe what you insist it does."

You were suggesting that the caricature might not be deliberately representing Levitz-the-fan-turned-Levitz-the-pro. I merely note that, in the context of its original published page, it palpably does. It's a page of caricatures of the people behind AWoDC. Naturally a page of photos would have better captured the people, and presumably you would argue that a photo-portrait of Levitz from that context would be better suited here. I would not entirely disagree with that line of reasoning (favouring a photo over a caricature), but then I would also still maintain that this caricature adds an extra level its subject - it was produced deliberately for the reason of illustrating (by a then-nearly unknown artist) the people behind the fanzine, for the fanzine.

"You may have personal knowledge of that background behind that image, but that doesn't mean that this is self-explanatorily illustrated by that image to someone looking at it."

Not at all, and the packed-in meanings can be unpacked by anyone interested - with the description and surrounding text. It's clear that Manak produced the caricature (one among many) of Levitz as he was involved in AWoDC. That Manak produced it for AWoDC. That AWoDC was DCs in-house pro-zine. That Levitz was included in the team because of his history with fanzines. etc.

"Using your reasoning, I should upload one of the caricatures I made of Sam Viviano when I studied under him in art school, because it illustrates that important point in his life when he was teaching at the School of Visual Arts, which is mentioned in his article, but lacks an image. But in truth, this would not be justified, and would come across as me trying to shoehorning an image into an article."

You perhaps extrapolate too far....! (And Mr Viviano's page already includes a SELF-portrait, presumably from the period you describe, which is preferable to an outside caricature.) If there were no caricature - and by parts of your logic, the self-portrait/caricature on the page now is superfluous, since there is a recent photo! - and you had produced one of Mr Viviano for publication in MAD, say, for an issue in which all their artists were caricatured, then absosolutely it could be included. I am not Manak (so there's no attempt to shoehorn in an image for reasons of personal glorification). Manak produced the caricature of a relevant moment in the life of the relevant person, for a relevant purpose, for publication in a relevant publication.

Indeed since Viviano's page - your example - currently has both a photo and self-portrait caricature, I'd be tempted to use it to support my argument(s) for the re-inclusion of Manak's Levitz..! Which image would serve a far greater purpose than the one on Viviano's page currently does, where it is superfluous, undated and non-contextualised - none of which labels (I argue) apply to Manak's 1976 drawing of Levitz for AWoDC. ntnon (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"The mere fact that all images might need a caption ignores the fact that a photo like the hypothetical one I described, at least suggests its nature without a caption, whereas that caricature does not."

Sure it does. The context tells everything necessary - it's noticably a younger Levitz, noticably a drawing, and placed in the section where young Levitz joins DC from fanzines to work on AWoDC. It's obviously either an image from 'a' fanzine, AWoDC or both. It's obviously young Levitz from that point. Just as a photograph of Levitz working on something would suggest immediately that he is at DC, it would not necessarily tell (except through its placement) whether it was an early or later picture; if he were in the role of working on a fanzine, working as a writer, working as an editor, or overseeing as VP or President. That's why you have a caption explaining that - because the picture suggests, and the caption clarifies. Both hypothetical photo and caricature suggest instantly what they are and why, based on placement.

"The fact remains that that caricature does not clearly convey any of the information you insist it does to someone who doesn't already have that knowledge..."

But they are getting that information/knowledge from the very article they are reading! You read a page to learn, and then glance at the illustrative image to reinforce what you have read: "Oh, he worked on fanzines first, and worked on one at DC. Huh. Here's a picture of him then that was published in the fanzine. Interesting."

"...you seem to be hell-bent on shoehorning it in there."

Not in the slightest. I would like more illustrations in all articles, as studies show that they reinforce the impact and learning. Engaging both sides of the brain, and all that. That's why comics were tapped by the army and other organisations to impart information. Illustrations assist reading, break up the page and are generally A Good Thing. Levitz-as-fan was not illustrated; AWoDC was not illustrated - I had access to an image that provided a "solution" to both points, and it worked well for over a year...

I'm happy for you to open up whatever sort of wider discussion you feel necessary, if you feel it necessary. There's no stone cold dismissal of your points, merely disagreement. There's no shoehorning, merely attempts to improve. You seem convinced that a mere picture cannot convey a mass of information, even when it will necessarily have both context (placement, source) and description (subject, artist, source) to help impart the information it possesses inherently. (Also, just to re-mention an earlier point, you mentioned Sam Viviano - admittedly in a separate context - to support your argument, and that page contains a non-contextualised image almost identical in appearance, but NOT in context NOR scope NOR need. Would Mr Manak's permission to use his caricature of Levitz - as that is the only justification for its inclusion on the Viviano image's page - legitimise its use?) ntnon (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Your e-mail

Hi. Awhile back you had sent me an e-mail, at a time when I was travelling and wasn't able to look then into the issue you raised. I'm back active now, but don't know if the issue has been resolved. If you still need me to look into it, please let me know and I will do so this week. You can respond either here or by e-mail. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing problem with The Real World: D.C.

Hello Nightscream. I was trying to update the Episodes section by adding an Episode 4 title ("D.C. On The DL") to this section, but just when my edit was about to occur, my internet server briefly crashed, and now, FOR SOME WEIRD REASON, the episode summaries show up in the External Links section instead of the Episodes section. When you click on "edit this page", it looks like everything is in the correct place, except for the aforementioned problem. Hopefully, this unusual problem can soon be fixed. Thank you. DPH1110 (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)DPH1110

Photo requests?

I just saw your photo of the Mother Seton School when exploring the AutoUpdating Commons:Special:NewFiles feature at the toolserver. Do you take many pictures of historic buildings? If so, would you be willing to help contribute pictures for the New Jersey lists of sites on the National Register of Historic Places? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Family Guy

Hi Nightscream, I've recently replied to a section edited by you here and would appreciate your opinion. Bertcocaine (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Kristian Ayre, actor

Appreciate your help in tidying things up a bit for Kristian Ayre. Two points though - I deliberately revised the sub-heading "Alien Adbuction Controversy" to include that AA was a TV show because otherwise it might imply that Mr Ayre had claimed abduction! Which might be defamatory... so if you could revise that back, I think it would help. Similarly, although you probably correctly shifted "programme" to "program," you should not have changed it within quotations, since that is how it was written in the book. Equally, as the article is about a Canadian rather than an American, I wonder if it should have changed at all...? Presumably, since it is a US programme, but still. ntnon (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that "no one will know that AA is a TV program," I'm stating plainly that it is confusing on a casual view of the page. Go to Kristian Ayre, and you will see the infobox, the brief summary and the contents bar. Within the contents bar, italicised and emboldened text is not shown in italics. So the sections read "1 Early life/2 Career/3 Alien Abduction controversy/4 Article deletion/5 Partial filmography..." Which sections are 'obviously' about his early life, his career, the deletion of (an? his?) article, an excerpted filmography, and - ostensibly - controversy over an alien abduction. Not controversy over "Alien Abduction (TV show)," because there's no context. (Unlike, say, the context provided by accompanying text next to and under a caricature, or the context provided when you read the section.)

The section does feature italics implying it is a show/film, but the 'main article' link doesn't make it clear what the article is about, even if it (should) become immediately clear when anyone actually reads the section... as, since you bring it up, it should be abundantly clear to anyone reading a section on Levitz's role with fanzines that the illustration, etc., etc.

Just a passing thought, based - ironically - on the criticisms you voiced about Paul Levitz, since you appeared to be arguing that the implications of context weren't enough... ntnon (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and about all the quotes: I agree. Problem is, that there are cabals and groups that insist on direct quotes, because paraphrasing can introduce bias or confusion or misunderstanding, while direct quotes are direct quotes and say what they say. Rather than any of us writing roughly what was previously written, and sourcing our words to someone else. So I have tended at times to put in as many direct quotes as possible to placate those critical voices... ntnon (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

One solution is to paraphrase (especially when a long quote can be condensed down) and then include the quote in the footnote - quite a few of the citation templates include a "quote" field which I've found very useful. (Emperor (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

The Real World

Hello, Nightscream. You have new messages at Wikiguy09's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Union City, NJ seal

I replied to Commons:COM:HD#Union City, NJ seal (permanent link). --Teratornis (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Suicides

Thanks for the notice. My only thought is that the article should not assume suicides just because somebody for example may have overdose. An overdose is not necessarily a suicide. I mentioned something about that before last year. But that's all I can come up with. It's good article. Koplimek (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll review the discussion, as I'm interested... but I think you should be aware that what you are doing is called canvassing, and is frowned upon here. I'm not really fussed, as I've never been comfortable with the policy, but it is specified at WP:CANVASS. I suspect that you don't know about this, so take this as a friendly caution - if it happens again it could get you blocked :( Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I assumed that the traffic attached to this issue was the result of your placing a neutral notice somewhere like the Wikiproject Biography talk page, but I can see that instead you have indvidually notified a large number of editors that you selected according to ... some criterion, but probably because you thought they would tend to agree with you, and probably not because you thought they would tend to disagree with you. That is disappointing, especially in combination with your misstatements about sourcing and your advice to those you canvassed that they should skip the earlier discussion on this subject. I feel obliged to let participants in the curent discussion know that they have been canvassed very selectively, and in the meantime I hope that you will do what I had assumed before and make some neutral appeal for neutral opinions. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

RE:Requesting your opinion - no need to contact everyone who left notes on the Talk page. Artlondon (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Real World: Cancun Reunion Special

Hello Nightscream. On the Real World: Cancun page, I noticed that, for whatever reason, it didn't have a reunion synopsis. Well, I finally took the initiative to add one, after watching the reunion special again. On that same Cancun page, you might notice that there is a "Real World/Road Rules Challenges" section below the reunion synopsis. CJ is the only cast member who is on the upcoming "Fresh Meat 2" challenge, which will likely premiere in late-March or early-April (right after the end of The Real World: Washington D.C.). Until the official "Fresh Meat 2" Wikipedia page is created, that section is surrounded by hidden text commands (EXAMPLE: "left arrow exclamation mark dash dash TEXT dash dash right arrow"). Let me know what you think of my reunion synopsis. Thank you. DPH1110 (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)DPH1110

Kendra Jade Rossi

Original Research? Her birthdate is on IMDB, and that is where I got it from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.169.0 (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

IMDb is a notoriously inaccurate source on many things. Since everything on IMDb is supposed to be sourced elsewhere, we look for the elsewhere, if it really exists. -- Tenebrae (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please make a minimal effort

I'd respectfully request that rather than simply deleting material, you at least make a minimal effort to source it. or failing that, place a tag so that more industrious editors can do so. Dlabtot (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Photo compliment

Basil Gogos shot. And I commend your removal of the self-promotion addition a publisher had made to the image caption. -- Tenebrae (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a good place to start. I think any ArbCom Committee would see the breadth, number of editors and sheer amount of time devoted to this at the RFCU, and understand the seriousness. Perhaps a ban proposal is what it would take for Asgardian to accept responsibility for his actions. He takes up so much of so many editors' time that it's a drain on many of us, I think perhaps deliberately. That's unfair to us and to Wikipedia, in that lengthy, drawn-out fights with rogue editors make it harder to attract and keep responsible editors. -- Tenebrae (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I finally got a response with regard to the FFD closure, here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Biography

Well, the Guidelines are just that, guidelines. It is less wordy and hopefully it should be obvious to all that these characters are fictional. Asgardian (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I use "Footnotes" which is accurate and allowable. I save "References" for other strong source material not mentioned in the article (and it may also not be External Link material). This way gives the choice of all three options for use. Asgardian (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk page archive

Hello. I've moved Talk Page of Josephjames21 October 2008 - February 2010 from mainspace to a subpage of your user page at User:Nightscream/Talk Page of Josephjames21 October 2008 - February 2010. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Liberation of Paris

Nightscream: RE your removal of a portion of Entrance of the 2nd Armored Division and 4th US Infantry division (24–25 August), please go to my comment here [2]. Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the support. I suppose I asked for it in trying to insert material into the biography of a living person as fans etc. can be very protective. I think the editor in question means well, but has just got the wrong end of the broom. Regards Asgardian (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you're interested, but said editor seems to be rather stubborn and can't seem to see the flaws in his own writing... Regards Asgardian (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Chilltown

Hi. I see that you deleted Chilltown with an indication that it had "no sources whatsoever." Actually, however, it did cite an article in the Jersey City Reporter (whatever that is) with a nonworking URL. That appears to have been a valid source...

I don't think that the article is needed, but I don't believe it qualified for speedy deletion. --Orlady (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page to your comment there. --Orlady (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		For your clean-up of the Kelly Osbourne page. Without keen eyes like yours, every artist page at Wikipedia would be a fansite. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian Noticeboard threads

If this is any help to you, because I see that people have been asking about noticeboard threads. BOZ (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comment

At this ipuser talkpage your comment seemed a tad bitey. Please consider using {{uw-selfrevert}} instead for such cases. Thanks, User:LeadSongDog come howl 05:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your call. I certainly understand the motivation ;-) User:LeadSongDog come howl 14:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Lower protection level for Alexandra Daddario

Can you please lower the protection lvl for the article Alexandra Daddario so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. I believe the article has much to be improved and many non admins can help. Thanks! --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 12:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

...and, I replied on my talk. Didn't think we'd need to WP:WHEEL on something as minor as a d.o.b. that has multiple sources. None of the BLP's on my watchlist contain references for d.o.b. as per the BLP policy. The only ones I have ever seen is when the d.o.b. is argued. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this user is a sockpuppet. I asked him/her to add the DOB but didn't know there was an issue of DOB on the article already. By the way, I would like to know which is considered a reliable source of DOB? --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 21:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Can these sources be considered reliable?

Thanks! Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 21:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

2010 Asgardian Arbitration

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What more do you think we need to do right now? What further steps need to be taken so things can progress? Tenebrae posted his statement on the evidence page, and nothing has happened since then. Are we supposed to do something else, or just wait? BOZ (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just wondering how much involvement ArbCom is expecting from the "involved" people. Tenebrae posted evidence, Asgardian rebutted, so do you and I need to do more, or do we wait to see what happens? If we are not supposed to wait, then what do we do next? Add more evidence, or what? I would hate for a clerk to close the case or something because we didn't do something we were expected to do. If you're not sure, I'll post my question on one of the talk pages. BOZ (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking because I want to make sure we're following the process correctly. Presenting evidence is only that, and separate from the outcome. (Think OJ trial - "mountain of evidence" did not equal a guilty verdict) I will wait to see if I have anything to add to what you and Tenebrae present - although I doubt I will have anything new, because all the stuff from the RFC and those ANI threads I found should cover my contribution.

As you say and as you know, I am neutral on the subject of banning Asgardian, and will argue neither for or it or against it. I know that some form of restriction needs to be put into effect at this point, but I am just not sure what that is. It's my hope that ArbCom will have the wisdom to find the right answer past my uncertainty, even if that is a long-term or indefinite ban. BOZ (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you like me to withdraw from the Arbitration at this point? Honestly, I'm having a hard time seeing why I should continue to be involved. BOZ (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, screw that. This is a community decision, not a Nightscream decision - neither of us is going to determine Asgardian's fate, which is up to ArbCom now that the can of worms has been opened. I will present whatever evidence I choose, for whatever purpose I wish, and decide my own level of involement same as anyone else. If you don't understand where I'm coming from, I don't know how to explain myself better than I already have. If you don't like or respect where I'm coming from, or that I have no specific remedy in mind, you're just going to have to learn to live with that. BOZ (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Nightscream. I have posted a proposal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence that I think might help, and to which I hope other editors can sign on there.

His fellow editors need a "probation officer" admin to whom they can turn, who has veto power over Asgardian's disputed edits and unilateral changes to Project MOS. In addition, we need a reinstatement of the probation he was under in, I believe, 2008, in which he could make only one rv (either via "Undo" or by a multitude of edits essentially comprising an rv) a day. That last probation lasted a year; as his behavior did not change, bringing us to this point, this probation reinstatement should last two years. Given that at least one other editor is calling for a ban, this probation seems a less drastic and more productive solution.

--Tenebrae (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence too long

Nightscream, your evidence is currently over 7,500 words long which is well over the 1,000 word and 100 diff limit. Please could you redact your evidence to summarise the salient facts leaving the linked copy in your user space for any arbitrators willing to read it all. If it is not trimmed with 24 hours a clerk will redact it for you. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please give him an exception with this one, as the case is too complex to be neatly summarised in that manner? I thought that it was a very good presentation of the situation with a lot of work put into it, and that the case would risk to become very misrepresented without it. Dave (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the majority of your evidence, providing a link to your full evidence subpage. That edit amounts to essentially deleting everything except for the first paragraph and your final three "conclusion" paragraphs. You now have plenty of room left before hitting the 1,000 word limit, so please feel free to edit your evidence to make the presentation that you desire. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Regards from Bearian

Sorry the situation had to go this far. Contact me if you need a shoulder to cry on. Bearian (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL, I'm not on the ArbCom. I'd rather have Chinese water torture. Bearian (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Just expressing sympathy, not responsibility. :-) Bearian (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Something on my watch list. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Now that the evidence has been presented, please read and/or join in this conversation. BOZ (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To that end, I have started some work on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Workshop using an example provided, as well as past recollections from reading other ArbCom cases. Obviously, that's far from complete, but you may want to look into whatever you can add. This is also the place to propose solutions (I don't know if it's enough to propose your solution on the evidence page; I think it should be on the workshop page, where the arbs will vote on it). BOZ (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read, and re-read, slowly and carefully, the above comment. I wrote it specifically the way I did to try to avoid the exact sort of response you gave. :) What I posted as a start, not completely, proposing no solutions yet, because I was just beginning. What you may want to do is start your own section for proposals, and if you think it's enough to do so you may say something like "Based on everything I posted on the evidence page, Asgardian should be banned. He can appeal, based on X, X, and X" or whatever you feel is best. Heck, copy and paste that part of your evidence-conclsuion. I don't know that the arbs will vote on something which is not proposed on the workshop page. That what I posted is incomplete at this time or touches only on part of problem does not make it wrong or not helpful. I'm not done yet, anyway. BOZ (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's my first time doing this as well - I'm trying to be careful, and emulate what others have done before. I'm going to add more, but probably not tonight, maybe sometime over the weekend. I need to think about what I want to do first. As you can see, what I have done so far has already generated some response. BOZ (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Here we go; I found a good example that we can follow. Basically what we are doing now, is adding to the workshop page the stuff that we want arbcom to vote on. Look at this page of a current case in the voting stage to see what kind of thing we can build. I'll do some work on a few "findings of fact" that mirror the CoM case - by "findings of fact" I assume they mean provable objective facts, as opposed to subjective opinions, and I think I can sort those out pretty well. BOZ (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Doing it right now, in fact! :) I'm just doing the first ArbCom case, RFC, and block log for now - I'm getting tired. BOZ (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Refresh the workshop page, and you'll see what I mean. If you want to see how much was proposed for the CoM case, see its workshop page, and keep in mind that the arbs may not use everything we propose (although they did have to sort through a ton of crap for that one, which will probably not happen with us). Anyway, g'night, I'm out for the night. BOZ (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrapping up of evidence

KnightLago, the drafting arbitrator, will start posting on the workshop page early next week, so this is the time to submit any final evidence. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Workshop: reply to assistance requested

As you requested assistance on how the workshop works, here are a couple of pointers. If you have any questions, just let me know and I'll answer them. Principles, findings of fact, remedies and enforcement are proposed by parties and arbitrators. Anyone can comment on these in the appropriate subsection (Arbitrators, parties, other users). BOZ has started and KnightLago, the drafting Arbitrator will be posting soon. The drafting arbitrator will take into account elements that seem pertinent and appropriate from the workshop to put forward the final proposed decision on a separate page. You are welcome to add your own principles, FoF, remedies and enforcement (though enforcement is rarely discussed on the workshop page, and it tends to be arbitrators who formalise FoF and remedies) or comment on those put forward by others. If you want to take a look at a previous example of a case I recently clerked, look at this workshop page. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nightscream, you would want to start here (assuming no one grabs that before you do; if so just move onto the next similar available section). You may propose principles and findings of fact, similarly to what I have already done, adding new ideas that I have not yet touched on, or expanding on aspects that I neglected in what I did post, and you may use the examples of other arbitration cases that Alexandr Dmitri has shared to generate ideas. If you don't have either principles or findings of fact, or after you finish with them, you can move on to proposed remedies. Based on what you posted as your conclusion on the evidence page, you may propose something like this: "Asgardian is indefinitely blocked. After one year, Asgardian may appeal the block to the Arbitration Committe, who will gauge his mindset with respect to principles of rational inquiry and good collaboration, and determine if he is able to return." That, or whatever you may feel is the best way to phrase it. Really, you can propose anything (or make more than one proposal), keeping in mind that you need to have something the arbs will actually be willing to vote for! :) BOZ (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You could pretty much go either way, I'd imagine, depending on how you want to present it. The principles seem to be general restatements of policy, and/or your interpretation of policy, as you'd expect it to apply to all users, with the unspoken implication that someone we know hasn't been following this. Findings of fact seem to be more blatant like "Asgardian has definitely done this, and I think I have proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt." Sort the behaviors along those lines, and I think it should be clear which goes where. If not, come back and I'll help you figure it out. But yeah, I think you're on the right track. BOZ (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Draft decision

Please see [3]. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian case now in voting stage

Just a friendly notice that, with the posting of the Proposed decision, the Asgardian case has moved on to the voting stage. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

With the posting of the Proposed decision, the Asgardian case has moved on to the voting stage. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You wrote:

Carcharoth voted to oppose the ban. Thus, when he says he thinks a ban is incomplete, and that he merely wanted to discuss what to do when the ban was over, he is contradicting himself. That's not "reading an extra intention", that's merely reading what he wrote. If he feels the ban is not enough, that's different from being opposed to it. Critical examination of a person's words has nothing to do with reading something into them that's not there.

As for forcing anyone to review the case, I have no idea what you're talking about. Nightscream (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Then critically examine his words like this. He voted to oppose the remedy to ban Asguardian. He stated his reasons for opposing the ban as being incomplete due to a lack of discussion about what happens after the ban is over. Had there been a remedy that includes a ban AND an action to be taken after the ban is complete he would have supported it. Where is the contradiction? The contradiction only exists in your mind because you are reading the oppose to the remedy as saying he is opposed to a ban. He's not opposed to a ban. He is opposed to limiting the remedy at a ban and nothing else. Which is to say that he supports a ban plus more.

If he were to suggest a new remedy (as in a ban and a probationary period after) then in order for that remedy to be properly voted on the Arbs would have to return to the case even though a majority of them have already voted in favor of the previous remedy. The would cause the re-review of the case that you have no idea what I'm talking about.

So rather than hold up the whole process for what is clearly a dead-end anyway, Carch noted his objection to a lack of post-ban discussion with an oppose vote for the remedy (which does NOT nessesarily translate into an oppose to the ban) and the remedy passed anyway. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Decision

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

User:Asgardian is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Priscilla Barnes

You further deleted the sentence I edited concerning Priscilla's 1976 Penthouse centerfold photos. Don't you think the article is incomplete if that is completely left out? I could source this with www.precydent.com but the site is down at the moment.TL36 (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I reinserted the info but used the appeal case's url at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit instead of precydent.com because their site is still down. Let me know on my talk page if this is sufficient. As if you didn't already know, I'm a novice at editing. Thanks! TL36 (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Brigitte Nielsen

Thanks, I know how to use and contribute to wikipedia and find it quite annoying that so trivial an edit would lead to such obnoxious a message. So please abstain to add such messages to my talk page. Be civil, don't bite the newcomers (which I am not), etc. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in my message to you was "obnoxious", uncivil or indicative of biting any newcomers, as I had already checked your editing history before leaving it, and it was a quite polite, standard template message that I use in cases of uncited information. Learning about Wikipedia, and improving one's understanding of its policies, is not something that any editor, even a long-tenured one, is above, myself or you included, and if you think that adding uncited information to articles is allowed by policy, or that it is within an editor's purview to judge information "trivial" enough to disregard this rule, much less tell administrators who correct them to not to do so, then your knowledge of how to use to contribute to Wikipedia would seem to need improvement. But if you really think anyone else would think my message to you to be inappropriate, or think highly of either your blanking it from your talk page or your quite impolite response above, then feel free to start a discussion at the Administrator's Noticeboard. Nightscream (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have no time to waste on this. Addressing me like as if I were totally oblivious to wikipedia just because I added the facts that Brigitte Nielsen speaks (apparently) fluent german and (vaguely conversational) french was arrogant. In my view, you were the one being impolite. I hadn't seen that it was a "template message", so its tone seemed quite obnoxious. IMHO, it was completely unneeded as you had seen my edit log. Now, if you please, let us not pursue this argument. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not address you as if you were totally oblivious to Wikipedia. I addressed you as someone who added unsourced material to an article, in violation of core policies such as WP:NOR and WP:V, for the simply reason that you indeed did this, which is a question of fact. Do you dispute that this is the proper procedure for administrators who discover such edits? If not, then your use of words such as "arrogant", "obnoxious" and "impolite" would seem to be mere reactions to your not liking it when someone corrects you, even politely. Unless you can falsify this or any other thing I've said, then the proper way to end this argument would be for you to stop acting as if it is the administrators who are wrong for politely informing you of when your edits do not comply with policy, as if you should somehow be exempt from such notices. Nightscream (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There are other - more important - facts that remain unsourced in the Brigitte Nielsen article. Take care of these instead of pursuing this fruitless exchange. The use of this "template message" obviously meant for freshly-arrived newcomers was entirely unneeded when a simple "citation needed" tag would have sufficed. Now please stop sending me messages as I have absolutely no interest in continuing this conversation. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The notion that there may be other unsourced material in the article does not give you license to add more, nor does it mean that administrators have to choose between yours or theirs, as this is not an Either/Or situation. I looked, and found very little unsourced material in that article, certainly none that appeared to be "more important".

The template messages I typically use are those I choose based on the situation, which I custom-modify for my own purposes, so I can attest as to what I is "meant" by their use. The ones for newcomers typically start with "Welcome to Wikipedia", and other similar phrases, and that is not the one I left on your talk page, and I already explained why that was. In any event, this is irrelevant, since the issue is not your level of experience, it's whether your edit was within policy. Unless you dispute the fact that you added unsourced material to the article, complaining about the type of message used, when it was perfectly in line with policy and with my duties, is both moot, and an improper point of focus.

As for citation needed tags, it is not up to editors adding information to dictate to other editors to source it or tag it. If you understand the policies in question, then the burden of sourcing is on you, not others. See Jimmy Wales' thoughts on this subject here.

If you don't want to continue this exchange, then stop insisting to me on my talk page that my leaving a perfectly reasonable message on yours is some type of wrongdoing. Nightscream (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Reliable Sources and Old Buildings

I ran across this and I wondered whether you were aware of the old Sanborn map collections? They're a startlingly good resource for establishing what buildings were used for and when. Sanborns are typically a pay-to-play thing, though many local libraries have free access. The U.S. Library of Congress has an extensive online collection of aerial sketches of the larger cities and towns as well. Less specific than Sanborn, the LOC collection is decidedly free and public. TreacherousWays (talk • contribs) 00:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A brief search for "Union City New Jersey" turned this up. Rgds. TreacherousWays (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WQA notifications

Hello Nightscream! When starting WQA threads on editors, please make sure to notify the subject of the thread just after you write your complaint. Not notifying the subject of the thread causes many problems, because complaints about a subject should always be within the knowledge of the subject, so they can post their response to the complaint. I have done this myself. Please keep that in mind. Thank you. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my first time making such an alert. Thanks for doing so for me. :-) Nightscream (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RealWorldLogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RealWorldLogo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RealWorldNewYorkCast.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RealWorldNewYorkCast.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PawnStarsLogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PawnStarsLogo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AmazingSpiderMan96.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AmazingSpiderMan96.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your question

Sorry about the extremely late response, I am no where near as active as I used to be on Wikipedia.

As to your question, the warning level is usually done by month unless the user has been banned before with a long history of vandalism. So in the case of the IP you mentioned, the last problem was back in 2008 (when I warned them). As such you should have just gone with the fist level basic warning. Also Wiki (at least when I was doing a ton of anti-vandalism back in 2008) is a little more lenient towards school a libraries due to the multitude of users who long on there.

Hope I answered your question, keep up the good work!

--Pewwer42 Talk 03:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Italic titles

It is done by adding a template to the top of the page - I found the culprit from last year [4] and removed it. We discussed this when the topic came up and it is only largely use for species. It was decided that if we had a project-wide consensus we could do something about it but only by adding it to the relevant infoboxes so it propagates to all articles (as it is pointless just appearing on a few dozen). So feel free to remove them from comics articles when you find them - if we do introduce them then it won't be via that route. (Emperor (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for File:GoodShep5.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:GoodShep5.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Blazing Combat

Hi, Nightscream. Just wanted to ask you to keep an eye on Blazing Combat. There seems to be an edit war brewing. An anon IP with an agenda appears to be violating POV, OP and "words that may introduce bias" guidelines. Details at Talk:Blazing Combat. Another editor's opinion is always helpful. -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Alice de Janze in list of suicides

I've added Alice de Janzé in the controversial List of suicides article, adding a perfect citation, a newspaper article citing her death and its being ruled a suicide, along with a link of the scanned article (found in Google News archive). I can provide tons of other citation, but first I need to know why you deleted my reference saying it was unsourced.

Personally, I don't find it a very clever move that the entire list of famous suicides was taken off the page and preserved temporarily into the Discussion portion of the article. Granted, there were no sources in the List article, but 95% of the names included, based on my personal research some time ago, were genuine. Now, with the slow rhythm everyone is moving, it could take years to have a comprehensive list again. And Wikipedia used to have the most comprehensive list on the subject. Alas, not anymore. Xanthi22 (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Poltergeist

I didn't add the unsourced information. I formatted it so it was presented in coherent sentences and used standard capitalization. 99.189.79.215 added the unsourced material (link to addition edit). Please review the entire edit history prior to leaving messages like the one you left on my talk page. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Angels & Demons

Thanks for your message. The items I added to the "Inaccuracy" section of Angels & Demons were not my original research. They were taken from the "Divergence from Reality" page of Wikibooks which is linked to in that section. Because of this link and because it is a Wiki project, I thought it would be okay to use this information - although it is true that none of the information on the page is sourced. The Wikipedia article mentions only scientific inaccuracies and, the first time I saw it, left me with the impression there were not many inaccuracies. Later I discovered the Wikibook page and realized there are many and wondered why none are mentioned in the Wikipedia article. I am a fan of Dan Brown, but his earlier books have many inaccuracies. Perhaps you could take a look at the Wikibook page and clarify for me the relationship between it and Wikipedia? Why are reliable sources not required for Wikibook? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.123.52 (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I focused on just a few most glaring historical inaccuracies and included sources this time. The sources are not the 100% gold standard, but the information is easily verifiable. The section focuses a lot on antimatter, but I feel the history is more important than the science fiction. Again I am a fan of Dan Brown, but his history needs some fact-checking. I assume his latest and future books are better now that he is so famous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.123.52 (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wanda Sykes

It looks like the issue is that the wikilink is not to the right work, though she does have a CD called Sick and Tired. I'll try to find a reference and also fix up the formatting to match the rest of the article.--Larrybob (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Garden State Plaza

Brian---Nice Job on the Garden State page....I didn't get what I wanted, but neither did that NCIS faggot...thank you User talk:68.105.120.222 23:08, 20 April 2010

IP removing citation requests

Thanks for reverting that. This person uses multiple similar IP addresses, per my thread here. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian's Talk Page

I know he has been blanking his talk page for his whole time. I normally wouldn't have bothered because I know he would just blank it again, but I thought with the year long ban he might not bother to come back to check. My main concern now is that he is going to create a new user name and the whole effort to block him will have to happen again, or (possibly the worst scenario) is that he'll edit as an anonymous IP and become practically unblockable (if he can rotate his IP address). Hopefully I'm just being pessimistic. --Spidey104^contribs 21:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Billy Lake

Hey NightScream, I saw the scintilating maximal graphic looks cool. Anything you can do or suggest would be appreciated on my posting photo.I made changes to the last one by leaving URL with acting credit. Thanks Earlshanksmith.jpg Billy Lake 23:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hudson County

Hey Nightscream, Are you interested in starting a group where we can coordinate and discuss ways to improve articles for Hudson county? Theornamentalist (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's just getting started, but here it is, do you know if there's a way to create an assessment table (leveraging from Wikiproject New Jersey) articles that are in the Hudson County categories? Hudson County Task Force - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Towelie

How does one go about citing the definition of words in a foreign language? Should I link to a dictionary? Should I just link to == Homosexuality in Japan ==, where the definition is comfortably accepted without outside citation? Dmk2113 19:50, 30 April 2010

File source problem with File:StMichaelsMonastery1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:StMichaelsMonastery1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:RooseveltStadium1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:RooseveltStadium1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The Lost Symbol

not much vandalism lately 22:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.86.83 (talk)

There is a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP on this article that you protected. Could you comment there? Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you get the chance, could you add a comment at this thread. Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Galactus - the final solution?

With Asgardian removed, David A and TheBalance have continued to go at each other over Galactus, and related Marvel cosmic articles such as Living Tribunal, Cosmic entity (Marvel Comics), and Template:Marvel Cosmic. Rather than let that siutation go on ad nauseum (although it is currently much less than it once was), I think there needs to be a resolution that either gets them to work together, or to stay away from each other. I suggested the idea of volunteer mediators to the two of them; David seemed skeptical but willing to try. Balanace said he "wouldn't object" but was too busy at the time, so I asked that he let me know when he was less busy; I have yet to hear back from him on the subject. I'd like to explore our available options for resolving this situation, maybe on the Galactus talk page or somewhere. BOZ (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring has resumed between these two users, and they have also been using edit summaries to discuss their differences rather than talk pages (and when they have used talk pages, little resolution has come of it). I think it would be good to discuss the best availabe option for keeping the two of them away from each other; please join me at User talk:BOZ#David A and The Balance for discussion. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

David A and TheBalance have agreed to mediation, so I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Galactus. If you feel you should be a party to this case, you may add yourself to the mediation, or I can do it for you; I believe that non-parties are not allowed to comment on active cases, so please take that into consideration as you decide. Also, please keep in mind that inactive contributors can cause a stall in the case, so if you may have trouble in continued participating then you should not add yourself. If you are added, make sure to sign the agreement – mediation cannot proceed until all parties have agreed.

If you do join the case, you may consider adding your own statement under the "Additional issues" header (please wait for David A and TheBalance to add statements first). This should be brief and discuss succinctly the issues between the two of them regarding article content, as you see it, not how you feel about the editors' conduct. For example, you would want to say "I feel the article should include X, but he removes it; I feel the article should not include X, but he restores it; I try to rewrite parts to fix them in a particular style but he reverts it", and describe, in brief, why you feel these edits are appropriate. Brevity is the key here; assuming the case is accepted, you should have ample opportunity to explain your feelings later. Remember that Mediation is about trying to resolve differences, not about proving who is right or wrong, or getting the editors in trouble. It is not about providing evidence of wrongdoing on an editor's part, because this is not an Arbitration case. The idea is not to discuss how you feel about an editor's conduct, or what kind of person they are, or focus on the negatives – this is an attempt for these editors to try to see the positives in the other person's point of view and find a middle ground.

Also, if you feel that I have included any articles in the case which should not be included, or that I failed to include any articles which should be included, please let me know as I can change that before the case begins.BOZ (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup

Hey Nightscream, I may not be able to, I have to be out of the apartment by the end of the month and the move is getting kind of hectic. I should know by next Saturday morning for sure if I could make it.. - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. And I do think it would be a good idea to meet up. Unfortunately I won't be in town until some time in late June/July, and then likely briefly. If there there seems an opportunity (as in not too hectic), I think we should be in touch. In the meantime I hope you guys can and perhaps brainstorm about a direction for HC to go in, if that's interesting for you. I've been little OD-ing and maybe need to have a refresh, and get some oter stuff done.Djflem (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Nightscream, I cant this weekend, but I definitely would like to meet up with you guys, since DJFlem wont be back until summer, maybe when hes around we can, Im moving to downtown UC so I dont think it will be that difficult. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Pawn Stars

This seems to be a classic example of a newbie just not reading their talk page. Hopefully they'll clue in soon.--Pharos (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Boulevard East

Thanks for your imput on above. Made "the move", of photos that is, and added gallery to which there seemed no particular opposition to. Hope you can live it.Djflem (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome

Can I suggest you slow down at the above page. You waited two and a half months to address the revert. Sandy is traveling. Wait a week or two and she'll have time to give your concerns the attention they deserve. It's not like the article is telling kids to drink kerosine. Anthony (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian talk page

Hello Nightscream, I just had a look at Asgardian's talk page, and it looks like he may be circumventing his block through other means. Phearson (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Jersey City picture

Hi, I have no removed your picture...I have simply moved it slightly lower. The picture that I took and that I am replacing it with was taken 3 weeks ago....therefore, would it not be a better picture to use? I hope you understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuvraj93 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Roger L. Jackson

The change I made to that article was a reaction to the fairly long-term abuse from an anonymous IP address. Perhaps I should have warned the IP user. About my edit summary, could you please explain what I did that goes against Wikipedia policy, quoting from whatever section you got it from, if you get the chance? Thanks. Classicalfan2 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wanda Sykes

Really? Is that one of the rules of Wikipedia?--94.195.166.152 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC).

Recent edits

Hi. Thanks for your recent edits on a couple of articles I've been editing. A couple of observations, that my edit summaries likely did not capture adequately.

1. You deleted a notable resident ref, which inlined to an article, that reflected rather clearly support for the info in question. If you read the article that it inlined to, I don't believe you would have had a question. If you were hanging your hat on the fact that a ref would have been helpful at the end of the sentence in question, I would think that a fact tag would be the better course. That allows editors to see your suggestion, and fix it. Otherwise, they don't even know of the issue (unless they see your very edit). There is also the sofixit approach. As we're trying to build a better project, I think my suggestions generally have the effect of improving articles, while deletions in such cases move the project back.

2. You've deleted some refs. While your edit summary says only "ce", I could guess that you thought they were not necessary, as they appeared in a later sentence.

If that was your thinking, I would suggest it is not the best course. As these articles are "live", the second sentence could be deleted. Or moved. Or have another sentence inserted before it. Or be changed so as to start a new para.

Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Moore

Hi Nightscream, Thanks for the tidying up of Patrick Moore. There have been long on-going edit wars over it - Env'ists v Patrick Moore himself, it seems. There's still a lot of superfluous narrative, blog refs and polemic in there but it's a great start. War hasn't broken out and it's starting to look like an encyclopaedic article. So, great. Spanglej (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Bad Faith edits (Re: Union City, New Jersey)

I have reverted your bad faith edit regarding population. Please try to familiarize yourself with the state of the article before making changes. With regard to the history section I have made the edit that speaks for itself. Why do you think there is furthur discussion needed?. If you wish for some reason to elaborate on Hudson County history there are sources for that, though I find the entire inclusion of the muncipal breakdown already too diverting from Union City's story. Djflem 05:21, 17 June 2010 (edit) (undo)

It is not a collaboration when the other party does not read the lastest version of the article or review the edit history and combines two unrelated subjects. simply, admit his mistakes and move on. That you have chosen not to do but rather make threats and create an uninteresting Wikipedia intrigue of investagations and polticking (consuming time and space better spent on research and writing- my edit count shows more than a 75% article contribution) makes it very hard to work with you. Are willing to admit that your recent edits and their summaries to Union City, New Jersey have confused two issues, and that you have not read the references in regard to the Cuban Day Parade provided b4 your reversions. You obviously have some issues with me. This is not the first time you have made an attempt to censure me when your edits have not prevailed. I suppose I will have to engage in some sort of defense as you spend your time mounting your unjustified attack, but I also hope it will expose the rudeness seen in so many of your edit summaries.Djflem (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that you were somehow unable to read the first sentence of the subsection 21st century, the one and only that makes mention of the Cuban Day Parade, and click on one of the references immediately following it to check verifibility? Is this not how Wikipedia works: A writer adds information w/ a reference, another if he so chooses checks it, and then if there something questionable a discussion can take place. You reverted the edit 3 times making claims w/o the crucial step of investigating the entry. You again reverted an edit from a completely unrelated matter and in your edit summary referred to the above issue, making that 4 times w/o investigating the material readily available in the article, and scolding about how its not done, when indeed the procedure of adding info to the lead and refs in the subsection was followed to a T. If you would have liked to have a discussion about the inclusion/presentation you would have done your homework, and been prepared to have one. You did not.

You also chose not investigate Hudson County's colonial history though on the talk page I suggested you do so since the entry you made had numerous factual errors. Only when I had made an edit which I believed was satisfactory you suggested I sort through the material you had added and and that I provide references for information you wished to include. You did not take the opportunity to make a proposal, an edit, or provide any references for that section once it was identified there was a great preponderence of other/more reliable sources than the one you had provided. My edit was my suggestion/input. There was no suggestion on your part as to how to improve the article, only questions which made it appear that you had not done any research to be prepared to have a discussion, and thus collaborate.

You will notice that the edits regarding population statistics with which you interferred went rather smoothly. One editor identifies problem, another pickups up on, article/refs analysed, homework done, corrections made, in good faith collaboration successful. Djflem (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Was curious how such a glaring inconsistency came to be, and noticed that you had made the edits (last being 11 Feb 2010) inserting a deceptive reference w/o changing the sentence which stated it was the Census Bureau and without making any necessary changes in the following sentence which was directly effected by the change. In the future please do not make changes that have ramifications without addressing those ramifications. And please be more transparent in you edit summaries when making such a drastic change. In this case you did not mention it at all. Djflem (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You might not like it, but there is nothing uncivil about my drawing your attention to the big mistakes you have made. There is nothing cryptic about the fact that on the 1-30 2010 and 02-11-2010 you made an edit regarding Union City's population based on a reference for the 07087 zip which includes Weehawken, and that you contaminated the article by inserting it in a sentence which clearly stated the source, the US Census Bureau and then did nothing to reconcile the population density figures in the following sentence. There is nothing cryptic about the fact that you have called the Cuban Parade of New Jersey the North Hudson Parade, and have said that there's one n Newark, too, but have provided no references. Now that you finally taken the time to look at them (five edits later), you complain that they don't have information you would like to have in them. (though numerous references to Union City are made). There's nothing cryptic about the fact a superior reference was provided for statements about Hudson County's history in my edit in that section. That you chose not to do any research, fact checking, or make any proposals once it was made clear that the reference you provided was questionable is a clear indication of your bad faith and unwillingness to collaborate. You're unwillingness to admit you make mistakes (a big whopper with regards to population) seems to have now taken the offense is the best defense approach by calling me uncivil, when it is clear that you are not paricluarly cooperative. The facts are in the edit history which readily accessible to anyone on Wikipedia, including those willing to look at them. What exactly is uncivil or cryptic??? Information/facts are the essence of an enyclopedia. BE BOLD. Expect challenges to your entries and actually work on the encyclopedia. This is not a forum for the personal and politic stuff. State your fact, defend it, accept superior work if offered, move on. There's plenty to be done. Your threats of censure go way beyond civility. I am very curious to see how you mount your case to defame me as the process will be a good learning experience that might come in handy. Djflem (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not about "drawing attention to mistakes", but the way you mishandle edits at the same time seem to feel comfortable rudely criticise others, pointing out policies that you yourself don't follow, and make threats to disturb my work on Wikipedia, and generally seem to wish to engage me in some sort of backstage wiki intrigue and consume time there rather than the place it really counts: Front and Center for the reader who doesn't give a hoot about how NIghtscream's or my interpretion of civility.

But I am glad you admit to making mistakes, the two in discussion big whoppers and quite surprising for some who portends to to so well-versed in Wikipedia procedure. (Are you an administrator?) The first (the dates place between 01-30-2010 and 02-011-2010, and yes you can find them I'm sure) by switching a reference w/o drawing attention to it and seriously comprising the integrity of the article and again doing the same thing on 17 June 2010. Though they may have not been intentionally deceptive they were extremely sloppy work which raises questions about your editorial manner and general respect for other editors, particulary those who were trying to sort out the mess you made in the first place. The 2nd of a well-referenced entry which was reverted 4 times by you w/o investigation and with claims, disrupting another editor's work. I'd call that uncivil as well as incompetent, especially since they were not accompanied by any inquiry on the talk page or my page, which would seem like the start of an edit war and bad faith to me. The appropriate response and procedure, as I assume you know, would have been to provide a superior reference or make an inquiring to the editor who's work you were tampering with or open up a discussion, which you say you are so willing to have. You did none of those things: You just reverted edits and were snide about it. (as a courtesy, as well as to back up your claim would you please send me a copy of the Newark parade reference you say is available)

With regard to disucussion please explain your behaviour regarding UC colonial history. There was no response to the invitation on the UC talk page to do furhter research to find information specific to Union City/North Hudson to include in the early history section. I left the article page with the misinformation on it for two days and then made a correction which solicited a response from you. There was no demonstration of curiousity on your part, and no actual discussion as in " Oh yeah, I see what you mean that my entry was full of mistakes, thanks for tipping me off. Do you have some other resources? Where do you think we can find more info about UC in the colonial era? Thanks for fixing the disam on Union Township I missed." NO it was a defensive/accusatorial stance in which you wished me to explain an edit which you didn't like and I hadn't requested your approval to make. I suppose, or hope, you have subsequently come to the conclusion that indeed the information you had posted was generally wrong and hope that you would agree that it was best for it to be removed asap to maintain the article's integrity. Or did you wish to have it stay there while you sorted out what you wanted to include. Should I have been more patient with you? Was that uncivil of me? I don't expect a thanks for cleaning up the mess you posted, but don't you think it is reasonable to expect another editor to take the time to investigate and then make a posting w/refs if or s/he genuinely believes he is making a viable contribution, epecially when there overwhelming evidence that the existing information of the article page is wrong. Why in your interpretation is that bad? Is that not the essence of the one Wiki policy you haven't quoted: BOLD? Where does it say that I have to wait for Nightscream to agree with me b4 making an edit that removes blemishes from the page and wait for him to get his head around the subject matter (hopefully preparing himself to actually have a real discussion about the article, which he did not do, and not one about Union City's apparently unqualified historian cited in reference not available to verify)? So I will ask you now, what have you learned and what would you like to include in the early history section that you feel is missing? If you intend to mention the Munsee language please do not try to slip under the cover of the pre-existing references as you did last time or be prepared to the cite the page and a passage from one of the four unveriable books since they are not digital. Or would you like to stop harping on accusations about my behaviour when it is clear that yours has certainly been less than stunning?80.57.99.7 (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Etiquette Report

Hello, Nightscream. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

While I do not wish to engage in Wiki-drama, the incident of the last days has made obvious that you have vengeful interest in disrupting my work that has blinded you to having a content-based discussion. I have done this as a way to record the incident and to protect myself from future bragging and threats on your part. If, in the future we should disagree, I trust you will maintain a more professional attitude (as in looking at the entries and revsion history and necessary investigation), and not expect me to wait for your approval if I choose to make a viable, good, a well-referenced contribution to an article that maintains its integrity while a discusson, if needed, takes place.Djflem (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know Nightscream, I closed the discussion as resolved as I advised the user to discuss any difficulties with you directly, and felt that the report he filed was very nearly a personal attack against you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hot in Cleveland

Hi. I have found some productions details (director, producers, editor, etc) here. I added the editor and director into the TV infobox, but I noticed that the site lists these credits for the Pilot episode only. Is the editor and director usually the same through the whole sitcom's run? The page on InBaseline is down, so I'm using the Google cache version. Do you know how long Google's cached versions stay online? Also, I'm the one the removed some of the plot from the cast section. I thought we were only supposed to add a brief description along with some casting information on the actor and real-world information on the character, not just plot. So with each episode are editors going to keep adding more and more to the section? I've never really "done" a TV article before, but this is usually the case on film articles. Thanks. Mike Allen 02:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for opening up a dialogue, Mike. I'm sorry to say that I'm not sure about director/editor roles, as I'm no expert, but my understanding, based on some examples I've observed in the TV and film industry, is that they tend go be distinct roles, even if a director may opts to do both. An acquaintance of mine named Brian Stack, who wrote/acted on Late Night with Conan O'Brien, did editing on that show, but I know he wasn't the director. Conversely, I believe film editing in the movie industry is done by a separate person from the director. I have no clue about Google caches. Sorry.

As for the info I added, it wasn't plot, but character info, as it helps readers understand the character's personalities or roles in the series. Does this mean that editors should add more and more material? Sure, but only in a summarized form as helps readers understand the basic, salient traits of the characters. A good example of this is the character section of the Friends article. It's not a lust of trivia from every single episode, but a summarized paragraph for each character, with a link to the article devoted to the characters at the top of that section. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant are the editor and director the same for every episode, since that site only lists the credits for the Pilot; I wondered if their will be different directors and editor for the second episode. Well, the Friends article is a good example. I did not know. So is it preferred for the cast to be listed as "Betty White portrays Elka" instead of "Betty White as Elka"? Also I found a good interview with Sean Hayes on the background of the show here. I'm going to go through it and see what goodies I can find. :) Mike Allen 03:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I know that episodic TV shows use multiple directors. This is evident when you look in the credits. Not sure about editors, but I would just guess that there's more than one. That's just my guess, though. Maybe looking at articles of long-running TV shows like Friends or Seinfeld might shed some light on that. As for the cast section, I think using the "actor as character" format is the common one on Wikipedia, and works better. Nightscream (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Your question

Have you considered a request for comment on user conduct? That's typically the next step when informal discussion hasn't resolved a behavioural issue. Steve Smith (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2010HotInClevelandAd.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2010HotInClevelandAd.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Shamrock

LOL - that was a good read, thanks for adding that. :) BOZ (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Beg to differ or figure he's right? :) BOZ (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That didn't work out so well. Do you figure that should be run past the reliable sources noticeboard, or is this guy giving you trouble for no good reason? BOZ (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hudson County Discussion

Hey Nightscream,
So I'm pretty much settled in the new apartment, would you like to meet up sometime soon? - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

A question regarding my edits to The Real World articles

I'm still getting used to editing, and contributing heavily to Wikipedia, so I still don't quite know yet what's considered well-written, so how come with most of my edits to The Real World and articles relating to it (such as the different seasons, the list of cast members, etc.) why do you keep changing mine? I know that I left out references and stuff, but that's more because I don't know how to make references. I'm not complaining, I'm flattered to see that you like contributing to The Real World as much as I do, but I just don't understand why you changed most of my edits, that's all. Thank you. Arilicious (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Drew Pinsky article

I share the same question as Arilicious; the motive for you removing edits. You did the same thing with mine to the Drew Pinsky article. I've redone the edits, this time adding citations to the Harvard Medical School and Rutgers University studies. This is far more than the usual Wiki article; my original edits were typical.

It is beginning to appear from reading the above that you simply change edits if you don't agree with what is being asserted. That's kind of scary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpd esq (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The Hassassins

I added the reference you requested. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

15th edition (2007), entry "Assassins." Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The article does not mention Dan Brown's novel. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

violating fundamental policies

Hello sir i just visited this article "Ajith kumar" and i felt this {Footer Movies "Blockbuster and Hit movies of Thala"} just does not make any sence. No other actor has this even Tom cruise or Will smith. I think it should be removed,it is one sided violating fundamental policies on writing from a neutral point of view.Sunnu308 (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean complete stuff is not needed. There is filmography then why we need this, its just some insane fans are doing. He has to date acted in 50 movie and everyone will start doing this. For every actor we only need awards or some important stuff not movies they acted. Sunnu308 (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnu308 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ya right but it is unnecessary to have in same may be they can in have seperate page.Sunnu308 (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Columbo

I disagree with your assertion that identifying Greg Koukl's works with Columbo is original research. Typing "Greg Koukl"+Columbo into google reveals more than 7700 sites, with most fully supporting the identification. One such link is http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6879 . A fuller description of Koukl's use appears in his book Tactics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.61.63 (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Nightscream. I'd like to thank you for this correction. I meant to write "expert kung fu student", but your correction is even better. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox header

Please do not remove the header at the sandbox, as you did here. Thank you. —mono 01:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Question/comment for you at talk:Robert L. Park

That's really about it I suppose. I could have left this section blank. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

User 66.90.148.162

Looking for something else, I came across this, I'm guessing this stems from your recent interaction with a certain IP editor (and his misidentification of your RL identity). --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a lurker at the forum, he'd mentioned on another thread that some wikinazi had stopped him adding stuff to Ron Marz's article (which I then checked and reverted some more stuff from him, noting the IP address) and since he seems to be on a static IP, when he started that thread asking for help, it wasn't hard to put it all together with what was said on the IP talkpage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Here, it seems he mentions your account by name. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to commend you on your interactions with this editor. They have been a model of restraint, patience and reasonableness in the face of opposite. Well done! Mkanoap (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from checking my submissions

You banned me for 6 months for making an edit that proved to be true and is now cited. You did not respond to any of my request for re-instatement and I would appreciate it if you left checking my edits to other people. Thank you. 204.86.42.50 (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)",

Copy Edits

Nice work here. I need to learn from you. :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Roy Thomas

You're my Nightscream in shining armor! Thanks for the catch. Always good seeing your name pop up. I don't see as much of the old gang as I used to. Regards as always, -- Tenebrae (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Asia Carrera's birth name

I noticed you reverted my edit to Asia Carrera. I understand that this has become standard policy on Wikipedia that when a nobody like me makes a controversial edit, an administrator comes by and reverts it, no questions asked, no comments made except a dismissive edit summary. I'm not saying this because I'm upset or being petty. I'm searching for the truth, first about whoever "Asia Carrera" is and secondly, on why you reverted my edit and, quickly and without much thought I assume, cited a Spike TV top ten list of all things. As an administrator, you have to be smart enough to know that Spike TV probably got their information about Asia from Wikipedia. I believe it's called the "mirror effect." It's been so long since I've been on Wikipedia I don't remember. Anyway, Asia Carrera's birth name is a secret that she has tried very hard to keep. The only reliable sources for her name would be her birth certificate in New Jersey, if indeed she is from there, a quality, reliable newspaper (not "Star" or their ilk), or perhaps the small, obscure advertisement that she put in a small town California newspaper announcing that she was "Jessica Steinhauser" or whatever, d/b/a "Asia Carrera." That was all that was required for her name change. The Steinhauser theory has its problems; if you've read about her you know why. That's why I put "purportedly," because no reliable source can be found for her name. Many people have tried to find it, but they have failed. I think that she should just be "Asia Carrera, birth name unknown" or "Asia Carrera" and then have a section on the controversy over finding her "real name." I'm going to be writing an essay on Wikipedia, and it's not for any school project. I'm trying to suss out your motivations at the same time as I'm trying to fix the Asia Carrera article. I'm thinking that you were just following the pattern of jaded recent changes patrollers: "revert and insult." I'd love to know what you think about this. I'd also be interested in knowing your age and motivations for being a Wikipedia volunteer. Thanks, --WMFEssaywriter (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to me. I wrote the bit about the small town newspaper because the info comes from Asia herself via her website, and most of the article is sourced from that website as well. I guess I should dig up the website address, since I was drawing on my own memory. I'll do that when I get a chance. I once had a girlfriend who had a friend (I know, roll eyes now) that went to Rutgers and told me she'd "heard that she (Asia) went to school there and dropped out." Asia is putting out misinformation, I believe, in a very successful attempt to hide her origins. I don't believe for a minute that her father was Japanese and her mother was German. I think it's possible she's not even half-Japanese. There are lots of scenarios one could think up. Ancestry.com may be a good way to find out her name if someone is very patient, and if she really did come from New Jersey. She could be a half-Vietnamese Amerasian girl who was born to a Vietnamese woman and an American soldier who subsequently abandoned her. Her mother may then have married another serviceman, who resented Asia because she wasn't his kid and abused her. It's a plausible scenario, but who knows? BTW, I'm about your age. I'll turn 36 in about two weeks. I guess I kind of poked you with a stick to see how you'd react, but that's for the piece I'm writing, and I'm sorry if it upset you. I think the only thing you did wrong with that revert is using Spike TV as a source. To me, it's just not that reliable, but I used to write on Wikipedia about four or five years ago. --WMFEssaywriter (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I found some information that may actually support the theory that her name really is "Jessica A. Steinhauser" or "Jessica A. Steinhavsar. I agree with you totally on respecting her wishes regarding anonymity. I had a girlfriend that corresponded with her via email. We both enjoyed her work. I think I may email her and ask if she would like the "real name" suppressed. Since I think Jessica Steinhauser may be her real name, it may be a good idea to remove it completely. It's not necessary. All her notability revolves around the name "Asia Carrera." Without the porn career, she wouldn't be notable.--WMFEssaywriter (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to message left on talk page: I tried to email her, but it's a dead address. I just asked if she wanted any guesses at her real name suppressed. Her website has said the same thing since 1996. That's why it looks so Web 1.0. I think Asia Carrera should be the only name on the webpage, because she has clearly expressed her desire for anonymity. --WMFEssaywriter (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:DeuceAndCharger.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:DeuceAndCharger.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian / please help

Hello there, I am new to Wikipedia and just edited my first article. I added an "original plot" section to God of War III, as I think that the vision of the series creator is relevant information. I am not a native speaker, but I think my English isn't too bad. A fellow editor from Sydney (IP 125.xx) keeps deleting my section instead of improving it due to "poor grammar and weak, colloquial language". The user's history shows that he regularly uses the same comment when changing other edits. His wording is similar to that of user "Spartancourage", who was blocked for being the new account of user "Asgardian", who was banned. Can you please have a look into this? I would also appreciate your feedback on the quality of my "original plot" section, which I have posted on the talk page of God of War III. Many thanks in advance. 84.56.59.199 (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)