User talk:Nightscream/Archive 3

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

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic

Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a reminder that the WikiNYC Picnic is tomorrow (August 24) from 2 PM to 8 PM. If you plan on being lost, be sure to come ahead of time! To clarify, the picnic will be taking place within or adjacent to the Picnic House in Prospect Park, Brooklyn. I hope to see you there! --harej 03:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

I fail to see how your explanation for the reverting re: the Mackenzie Calhoun page applies. Star Trek takes place in the future. It's fictional medicine is far advanced. The scar could be removed in seconds, but it is not, therefore he has chosen to keep it. Lots42 (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd have to disagree with you (politely). Many of the Calhoun books mention this and the extent of Star Trek medicine has been demonstrated dozens and dozens of times. Lots42 (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I went to the episode you linked to and found no mention of any medical technological levels. Feel free to correct me or link to something else. As for the rest of your comment, that is what I was trying to make clear; I wil attempt to find one of the books mentioning Calhoun's desire to keep the scar. I believe that will be a sufficent enough link, considering Calhoun has only appeared in the novels and one graphic novel. Lots42 (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

??? The three examples you gave me don't actually bolster your opinion. We have a crazy Cardassian, a proud Klingon, who like Calhoun, chooses not to revert, and some people off screen who for all we know were on their way to Sickbay to get scars reverted. Lots42 (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, we DO know the scar can be removed but Mac chooses not to, because it is said several times in many novels. I will look for one of these novels in order to cite it, I do not have access to them at the moment. Lots42 (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Union City emblem

I saw that you edited something I wrote in regards to Union City, NJ. Did you notice the emblem of Union City? It is definitely not the real one and it says "understanding with contributions." I know how corrupt my city is, but that not the correct emblem. Why not change that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryHasUses (talk • contribs) 20:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Do not remove

Do not remove my talkpage comments, as you did here [1] Swampfire (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Real World: Brooklyn

Yeah I wrote that and as far as I know there was no valid reason to delete what i wrote in the 1st place. It was credible info. There was no reason to delete it. Thanks. Rwhollywoodfan (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Take it easy. I put the quote in there because it was relevent information. You did not have to remove it. You had no reason to do that. You don't need to block me. But like I said before, there was NO REASON TO REMOVE IT! Thanks.Rwhollywoodfan (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I didn't see that. My sincere apologies. Thanks for the help. Rwhollywoodfan (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC

Information on RW Brooklyn

Filming already started for almost 3 weeks now so please change it to "Filming for the season began August 2008" if you will. There are many pictures to proove it. And also all over Vevmo.com74.196.134.34 (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

CBG in brackets

Thanks. I should have thought of that. :-) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Rags Morales

RE : Morales personal life. That's weird I thought the citation had the information where he was divorced twice.

Anyway it's in the below link : http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=112859

Do you think it's worth inclusion in his article? Stextc (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Equus

I updated the infobox and checked through the article using the site for the purposes of WP:V. The problem with just relying on primary sources is that you can miss things which is why we ask for independent third party sources just as back-up really. Not foolproof, obviously, but if there had have been a disparity I'd have investigated further.

I'm also looking around for out of universe material (especially on character creation), as the article needs it, but can't find any. (Emperor (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

All edits that move things forward can be considered as "constructing" an article. In the end I really don't care and if you don't like it where it is, then move it. (Emperor (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

Whatever you think is the best, after all edits are always provisional and as long as the article isn't going backwards then I don't mind.

I have also had a good look around and not found much else on the character other than someone in an article on Countdown which described him as Wolverine meets Bane, which isn't that useful but I must admit to think "retractable claws? Wolverine?" but that doesn't mean that is where the idea came from, it is just there isn't much from the creators on the character design. Pity, but I'll keep an eye out. (Emperor (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

Jasmin St Claire

I have updated the talk page with the verifiable info —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumpy6639 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ultimates

I'll delete it every time when that badly written. Just do the rewrite as I requested and all will be fine. Asgardian (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting information that is not to Wiki-standards is fine. As I said before, just rewrite it. I was going to do it anyway. But please don't make silly threats. Let's just get on with the business of editing. Asgardian (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your block of Asgardian

Can you talk me through your block of Asgardian? I don't quite see what the block was for, so I'd appreciate being walked through it since I must be missing something. Ta. Hiding T 09:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your input regarding Asgardian's block. I left a message in the discussion on Daniel's Talk Page. Nightscream (talk) 06:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've read that, and the discussion at User talk:Hiding as well. And have commented at the latter. - jc37 09:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm getting confused. What was the block of Asgardian for in the first place? The stated reason is persistently removing material, but if the only examples we have are the three edits you gave me, that's not persistent and it isn't a breach of policy; he's allowed to remove unsourced material. You're right, it doesn't mean he should, but he shouldn't get blocked for it. Whether a previous involvement with a user precludes you from making a block is a hard one. I had this issue a while ago at Pat Lee, and because I'd edited the article, even though it was to revert BLP violating edits, it meant I had become involved. I don't really know how it works, but I think a rule of thumb on Wikipedia is that you don't block someone who makes personal attacks against you. Did you check with Daniel Case before or after the block? With regards tem[;ates. no, there are certainly two ways of looking at it. All I know is they wind me up when they appear on my talk page; I then put myself in the shoes of the other person and try and avoid them if I can. Asgardian is a tricky customer to handle, I'll grant you that. If you're unaware of his arbitration parole, it doesn't matter, because he hasn't breached it here anyway. He has to make edit summaries and discuss reverts, which he appears to be doing. Tell truth, it may have expired. But look, down to the nitty gritty, is this the first contact you have with Asgardian over the issues which led to the block? [2]. I think I'm seeing light at the end of the tunnel here. Hiding T 22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not getting it. It looks to me like an editorial dispute. Looking at Ultron, he's removed a ref to Annihilation Conquest #1, is that still needed in his rewrite? He's removed something sourced from an interview at newsarama, again that's allowed under policy, and he has generally tidied up various instances of plot summary. What policy is he breaching here? Looking at Vision he's removed speculation and moved what he feels is too much detail, again not against any specific policy. And looking at Bi-Beast, he removed an unsubstantiated claim, which means exactly the same thing as unsourced, and per policy the onus is not on Asgardian to substantiate it. Per policy, Asgardian can remove it, it says so at WP:V. You're right in that he doesn;t have to, and that to some it is preferable to add a fact tag, but there is no policy which says removing unsourced or unsubstantiated material is wrong. That's a violation of policy. And again, he tweaked and copy-edited. He's allowed to do all of that. And then all I can see happen next is that you post this message on his talk page, [3].

Look, I'm not trying to bust your chops on this, it just looks to me like it could have been handled better. If your dispute with Asgardian is on an editorial level, which it looks to me like it was, then I don't feel you should have blocked Asgardian. He hasn't committed vandalism, which is the reason posted to his talk page, he isn't "persistently" removing "valid material", because the stuff he is doing falls under editorial remit and if he is reacting in a non-constructive manner, you should generally get another admin to wade in. Look, I'm only here because Jc asked me to look into it. I don't feel it was the best block in the world, but these things happen. I recall I made a bit of an idiot of myself with you once a long time ago. I've pretty much pledged not to block Asgardian again after events in April and before. If I feel he needs blocking, my thinking is I'll go post at WP:AN and get a second opinion. Maybe that's a path you need to take. I don't know. It's your call. Looking at your block log, it is mostly ip's and new accounts, so I think this is the first time you've blocked an established user. I'm not going to sit here and say Asgardian is perfect, but I think we all agree he has come a long way since he started. Mind, so have all of us. I don't doubt you were doing what you thought was the right thing to do. All anyone can ask is that we each do our best. Hiding T 08:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made an idiot of myself with too many people too many times to remember them all, but I'm fairly sure our paths must have crossed one time or another. Weren't you involved in the whole T-Man saga or do I have you confused with someone else? I think we seem to be agreeing that Asgardian is terrible at communicating and a little too insistent on his preferred version. What I'm looking to prod now is, given you've tweaked Ultron to include material you would prefer in, would you now say you're involved in the article? And would that prevent any further blocks around this issue? I think we're pretty much on the same page. As to the word vandal, the block reason in the template states "continued removal", but the word "removal" links to Wikipedia:Vandalism, so that's why I was saying the reason indicates vandalism. I think if we can agree on some particular points, I think we may be done. Asgardian tends to copy-edit and clean-up articles, and that involves aesthetic considerations and reliance on WP:V and so on. That's allowed, and whilst there are ways of doing this that are better than others, none of them are not allowed. When there's a dispute over what to include, consensus and our policies dictate what we do, with editors discussing. This is where problems with Asgardian start. What we have to try and work out is how to move forwards from that position. My feeling is that one should just be frank, firm, but courteous with Asgardian, something like, "you removed this piece of text which I feel adds to the article and the reader's understanding. I think it should be in the article, as such I have restored it. We shouldn't edit war over this, so the only other way to sort this out is to discuss it. If you have serious issues with the text, let's discuss them. Neither of us owns the article, so if we can't sort this out between us, I think we should involve other people." It's a way forwards, and how Asgardian responds is up to him, but there are rules of engagement on Wikipedia as I have made clear to him. Best, Hiding T 12:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Small thing w/ All-Star Bats #10...

It was published, and, IIUC, did actualy get to comic shops before DC recalled it for pulping and reprinting.

See:

http://search.ebay.ca/All-Star-Batman-10_Collectables_W0QQcatrefZC5QQdfspZ1QQfclZ3QQfromZR7QQfrppZ50QQfsooZ1QQfsopZ1QQnojsprZyQQpfidZ0QQsacatZ1QQsofindtypeZ0QQsofocusZbs (eBay Canada) http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_enCA277CA277&q=all%2dstar+batman+and+robin+10 http://newsarama.com/comics/090811-ASBR10eBay.html http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/13260.html http://wednesdayshaul.com/wordpress/2008/09/08/dcs-pulping-of-comics-continues-with-all-star-batman-robin-10/ http://comixster.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/all-star-batman-and-robin-10-recalled-due-to-cuss-words-in-the-comic/

And so on...

So "as Issue 10 has not yet been published" is not 100% accurate... It came out, DC wanted it back but didn't get'em all, so some have access to it. J Greb (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a biggie... I've got a feeling most LCS played fair by DC. The eBay stuff is the exceptions. IIUC DC has moved the "street date" to next Wednesday, so that may be a fairer note for an edit summary. - J Greb (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Local Comics Shop(s)"... though "Seller(s)" is probably just as valid. - J Greb (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Asgardian

Thanks for the heads-up. Perhaps I'm missing something, but so far (since his block), I see a bold edit by him. I see his post on the talk page (which coincided with his edits). I see the partial reversion by you. What would you presume the "next step" would be, if you were neutrally watching this? - jc37 08:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Emperor is making some valid points about discussion. For now, I think I'll defer to his experience/wisdom in how you (plural - you and Asgardian, and potentially others) might engage in discussion together. As an aside, one thing I also noticed was that (this time at least) Asgardian made his changes in several edits rather than one overall "big" edit, which was another concern of the past. - jc37 22:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The "aside" I mentioned above, was more a note about previous concerns. (Which is why it was an "aside" : ) - jc37 23:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note too. I agree that his edit summarise are inadequate/inaccurate [4], [5] and [6] but he is discussing the edits on the talk page (which must surely count as an attempt to "solicit discussion"). I'd suggest trying to engage him there - if you can make a good argument for putting material back then that seems the best way to move forward. (Emperor (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

Problem is that if he is at least making some effort to communicate and you aren't prepared to then things are obviously not going to get any better. He is rarely in blatant violation of guidelines, so it can get frustrating as it comes down to a matter of opinion, but you have to try and see if you can thrash out your differences with him (we can't do that for you if it really just comes down to your opinion vs his) and if there is still an impasse then we can try and thrash things out on the Comics Project talk page and see if we can't come up with a solution. (Emperor (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

Problem is that if you don't even try he can point at things like the talk page there to show he has made an effort and it will look like you are in the wrong, which is going to make it more difficult to sort this all out. (Emperor (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

Well it has to be worth a try. Asgardian must realise that there is a finite limit to the number of times we go around the block on this issue and, believe me, there have been improvements over the years and he is prepared to listen to reason. We'll all have to assume good faith and see where it takes us. (Emperor (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC))

And to clarify, my preference is unification of discussion, deference, and politeness. If you look more closely at my edit history, you may find that actually I don't "keep everyone else's" displayed on my talk page. I mostly leave appreciated "gifts" (like Barnstars and thank yous), since that seems polite. And also multi-person discussions, since the proper unification location would seem to be my talk page in those cases. Else I defer to the other person.

For example, look at your discussion with Hiding. Though I've attempted to add his responses to the discussion, imagine trying to read that without it being unified, especially with the other comments of the other people.

And the history noting that someone commented on my talk page is there in my page history. In most cases, one merely needs to go to that person's talk page (or archive thereof) for the full discussion.

(There's a longer version of my reasons for this, but that's the basics.) - jc37 23:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And now you've removed your comments, which removes context. But it's your talk page, I suppose. - jc37 01:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the continuity of the page is "difficult to read". Threading/indentation, and timestamps make it all too clear, I would presume?

And there are several ways in which editors discuss/format. (You've apparently not run across "talk page rules" notices yet? I've personally found that most (though not all, by any means) long-time editors prefer unified discussion of one kind or other.)

That said, as I noted above, do as you will, I suppose (per WP:TALK). - jc37 01:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, threading is done on user talk page just as posts are threaded on an article talk page, or any other discussion page.

And no, I was speaking of something else. See User talk:Horologium for one such example. Note, of course, that such "rules" are voluntary, and are merely guides to help other editors understand how the user may respond.

Incidentally, at this point, I would typically split this off-topic discussion to its own thread. (And will momentarily, which you are, of course, free to revert.) - jc37 03:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If you do this, could it be done with a bit more care? Because one edit [7] removed my previous two replies here and, while clearly accidental, it could be taken the wrong way by some (as it is considered poor etiquette, at best, to remove good faith edits on someone else's talk page). (Emperor (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC))

Agreed, and my apologies for the accidental removal.

In any case, I think I'm done with this "discussion" concerning talk page formatting, as it appears to be to a point where I no longer feel that clarification is being requested. - jc37 04:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - they are two of the 4 or 5 things that seem to reoccur a lot (which could be said to boil down to an overly strict reading of the guidelines). I've left a note on the Black Bolt talk page and already had both that and Ultron on my watchlist so was keeping abreast of things. I'm afraid I've had little success elsewhere and am unsure how effective I've been really (although I'm not prepared to throw the towel in!!) but jc37 is on point on this one so perhaps he might have some clever ideas (he has the page on his watchlist so I assume will drop in). (Emperor (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

It might be better to recuse yourself making the last call on that as you are actively engaged in these content disputes - I know, after getting more involved in trying to help out, I feel the decision should be left to a third party (either a trusted one within the Comics Project like Hiding or jc37 - sorry guys but I thought I should name names ;) ) or we can ask an unconnected third party to look over the edits. As he isn't running a horse and cart through the guidelines (sometimes it can even be classed as sticking to the words of the guideline and not the spirit, other times the guidelines don't support his statements - but rarely anything that is a blatant violation) it could be tricky to prove definitively but in the end it should give a result that is acceptable to most people. (Emperor (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC))

Well there are often good grounds for removing content and even deleting articles (WP:CRYSTALBALL is one that comes up quite a bit and there is clearly a grey area between the ball getting rolling before the actual issues launch and having it in paper - however, the guidelines do state criteria that allow for an early inclusion and if you can tick the boxes it is usually fine). Hiding and jc37 do have this page on their watchlists, I assume, but I'll drop them a note anyway. (Emperor (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC))

(Cross-posting)

I was watching this yesterday, but at that time "discussion" was just starting.

I have no opinion on the current disputes except:

• (again) discussion with a goal for determining consensus should happen, per WP:BRD, and
• no, based on the discussion last time, and the edits I see now, Nightscream is not an uninvolved admin, per WP:ADMIN (direct link seems to be WP:UNINVOLVED). Hiding tried to politely help Nightscream understand their involvement last time. That said, if Nightscream disputes this, I will post a notice to WP:AN (with supportive links) and see how others feel as well. (Though we already have Emperor, Hiding, and myself. How many admins should it require?) - jc37 22:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of how my administrative status is viewed, which is why I tried to talk to Asgardian, as per Emperor's requests. As I tried to explain to Emperor on his Talk Page, and other Talk Pages, I've attempted to speak with Asgardian, but Asgardian has largely ignored me, has responded only sporadically to my posts, usually preferring to revert my edits, without discussion, and without citing policies (except for those he makes up), and when I respond to his arguments by pointing out how actual policy/guidelines do not support his position, he again ignores me by repeating the same original statement, and not directly addressing my rebuttal of it. Nightscream (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Before I say anything else, I want to try to clarify something:

• "I am aware of how my administrative status is viewed..."

I sincerely hope the you understand that the adjoing phrase is: "...in this situation". And to further clarfy: I might re-write the sentence to be: "I am aware of how my usage of administrative tools may be viewed as inappropriate in this situation." - Or something similar. In how I understand it, typically, by joining in the content discussion, you become "just another editor" in most cases. (There are WP:IAR exceptions, obviously. But atm, even if I am discounted, I don't think that this situation has a lack of administrative oversight : )

But what I really want to make abundantly clear (speaking for myself at least) - None of this has anything to do with how I may view you as an admin. Honestly, I don't recall ever encountering you prior to this (I may have, but then I encounter a lot of people : )

Anyway, back to your comments, I am empathetic to your frustrations in communication with Asgardian. As you have discovered, this isn't something new, but I (and others) sincerely feel that he's improving. This may or may not help your frustration level, but it's at least something to give us hope for the future. (He really does seem to be "getting better" about this.)

And finally, if, for whatever reason, you're uncomfortable dropping me a note concerning this or future situations, I am fairly certain that Hiding, J Greb, Emperor (who are all fairly closely acquainted with the past situations), and even potentially others, would all presumably be happy to help however they can, if they can.

I hope this helps clarify.

(Incidentally, please note that this is the first thing I've read since signing in.) - jc37 05:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that qualifier was implied in terms of what I intended when I wrote that. And no, I never got the sense that your view of me was in issue. I genuinely appreciate your participation, since a better consensus can be reached the more that others, esp. admins, chime in, and I don't want you stop doing so. I just hope that you would address the specific points being addressed, and not just in regards to the edits, but the issue of behavior. (The one thing I'd wish you'd change is retaining and archive your TP threads instead of deleting them, as per policy, so that there is a cohesive, continuity-based record of them.)

As far as Asgardian, while I genuinely admire the depth and detail of his valid edits--the trimming, the placing of sources, the removing of POV content, and think he would be an invaluable asset to WP if he confined himself to these areas, I'm sorry, but I do not see improvement with regard to his adherence to policy or in how he interacts with others. This isn't blind dissent either, I'm pointing directly to the examples of his behavior that I have listed on his, Emperor's, and the Black Bolt Talk Page, which I'm sorry, is inexcusable, and identical to his behavior to date. Nightscream (talk) 05:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that an assertion (about whether particular edits follow a particular guideline, or not) can be subjective, and may be a matter of each person's interpretation or POV. And when two (or more) editors disagree on how the guidelines on content may apply, they should discuss it if they wish to achieve resolution.

And I might note that nearly every editor (that I can think of atm) who prunes content, typically faces similar adversarial responses. Asgardian just has baggage from past discussions (and arbcom restrictions), and isn't communicating as well as he might (and at times comes off a bit superciliously). These things are not helping him, to be sure.

But he's using edit summaries now. He's cut down dramatically on large whole-page edits. These are positive changes.

Remember, this is actually more than we require of other editors. Edit summaries are greatly preferred, but not required. And anyone may edit a page as he was. But at that time, his edits were just too controversial for some editors, and his unwillingness (then) to discuss, led to eventual sanctions and restrictions.

What issue(s) do you have with his behaviour that is outside of a dispute over content?

Note that I've just recently warned him regarding his not indicating in his edit summaries what the edits actually are. Edits which may appear to be subterfuge may be inapproriate per his restrictions.

(Also, after my previous attempt, I am dubious of whether a discussion concerning talk page preferences, and whether or not they are policy (which they're not) is likely to be a productive one between us. Per policy, you are essentially free to refactor placement of my comments, as long as it doesn't become disruptive, and does not present them in a way which might misconvey my intent, or meaning, etc.) - jc37 06:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It can only be subjective if both parties state cite the policy in question, and enter into a discussion in which they not only state their position, but respond directly to each other's counterarguments. Asgardian is not doing this. He does not cite policy, he makes declarations by fiat that imply some guideline or discussion, and largely ignores attempts at discussion, with sporadic exceptions. Often when he does discuss things, he ignores the counterarguments made by someone, by just repeating his position over and over. How many times now, for example, did I explain to him that the word "speculation" does not mean what he uses it to mean, and provide my reasoning as to why certain information does not fail CRYSTAL, only for him to simply ignore this, and repeat the assertion that it does? I posted this on his Talk Page. he never responded to it, but repeated his position on the Black Bolt Talk Page. I reposted the same counterreasoning regarding CRYSTAL. He then repeated the notion again that it violated CRYSTAL. Just look at his Talk Page, Emperor's Talk Page, and the Black Bolt Talk Page (as well as the edit histories of Black Bolt and Ultron for details evidence of this behavior. As for Edit Summaries, I don't recall saying anything about them, but J Greb has admonished him on his Talk Page for using a deceptive one. As for whole-page edits, I see no problem with them, as long as the edits are valid, and done in good faith. Nightscream (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"It can only be subjective if both parties state cite the policy in question, and enter into a discussion in which they not only state their position, but respond directly to each other's counterarguments."

Actually, an interpretation can be subjective even if it's only one person espousing the interpretation.

As I said before, I'm staying neutral to the content of the discussion. Emperor has kindly accepted my request to help mentor Asgardian, and is also in the discussion you mention.

A fair chunk of the rest would seem to be you wanting more substance over style; of how he should be more communicative; of wanting more direct proof to back up his assertions. That may be a fair request. But (while it may be frustrating) not meeting that request isn't a blockable offense. The worst that providing style over substance may do is to possibly cause that person's arguments to be giving less weight by whomever determines consensus/closes the discussion.

I think that if these are your concerns, then the best thing you can and should do is to continually ask for clarification. Ask for the "proof" that you're looking for. Noting, of course that it should be remembered that the policies and guidelines that you're both interpreting/espousing are intended to be a reflection of common practice and prior consensus, and in most cases, has little to do with whatever the state may be of the "codified text" on some page. (I point this out, as it's a common misconception.)

When I earlier asked about behaviour, I was asking about disruptive behaviour. My apologies for not being clearer.

And finally, I just would like to reiterate, while I am happy to help give advice on etiquette, and offer my general thoughts on policy and the interpretation thereof, I'm simply not going to join in on the content discussion. I am staying neutral to that. To put it another way, I'm not mediating the content dispute. (Though I think you both could do a lot worse than to ask Emperor to mediate for you.) I'm simply acting as a neutral observer to make sure that the discussion does not become disruptive (through things like edit warring, personal attacks, etc.), and that Asgardian stays within the restrictions that have been placed upon him.

I've offered you both some advice as to how to better communicate with each other. I hope it helps, but as anything, it's merely advice, and should be seen as such.

In all, I hope this helps. - jc37 09:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Jc, I'm sorry, but it doesn't appear that you're listening to what I've been saying. You talk about the subjectivity of one person interpreting policy, about continually asking for clarification, and better communicating, even though I've made it clear that Asgardian refuses requests to do so. How can one communicate with him if he refuses to engage in discussion? I didn't say anything about "style over substance", and have no idea what you mean. I have no problem with arguments being made that my interpretation is subjective, wrong, or doesn't fit the given situation best. My point is that Asgardian isn't making any, except in the most cursory or sporadic manner, and doesn't respond to rebuttals. Didn't you read this above? And yes, blanking page content, without citing a valid rationale, and without discussing it with someone else, continuing to revert it while a discussion is ongoing, and making personal comments about another user/admin, is most certainly disruptive behavior, and when the user refuses to cease or even talk about it when attempts to made to do so, blocking is indeed a valid recourse. Emperor and J Greb have been admonishing him of late too, so it's not like it's just me. If you're mentoring him, then you should educate him on these points. Nightscream (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm thinking that you're not understanding my comments. I'm not sure how to better explain, so I'll try to re-explain.

My role in this: a neutral observer.

I'm not specifically a mentor, or mediator in this.

(And while you don't seem to understand the warning I gave Asgardian, it seems fairly clear that he did.)

"blanking page content, without citing a valid rationale" - he was warned concerning that, though I will note that any other editor would be allowed to boldly make such an edit. AFAIK, that's not normally a blockable offense.

"continuing to revert it while a discussion is ongoing" - now that is indeed a problem (And he was blocked for 48 hours for that). But then, someone else had to be also reverting with him. Which means it could be a question of whether blocking (one or both editors) or page protection is more appropriate.

"making personal comments about another user/admin" - being an admin has absolutely no bearing on whether comments towards you are appropriate or not. If you don't like the tone or content of someone's comments, finding them to be uncivil, ask them to stop. If they don't, find another admin to investigate (presuming one osn't already present) and if appropriate, the commenter may be "helped" to cease. In this case, I've spoken to him already about his words and tone, and he has acquiesced to my request.

"when the user refuses to [...] even talk about it when attempts to made to do so" - nope, you can't force someone to talk with you. That said, if they willfully exclude themselves from a discussion, then what they may have hoped to achieve may not be achieved. But no, it's in no way a blockable offence. (I commented out "to cease, or" because that's already been explained.)

One other note, blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive. So try to accept that actions in the past are in the past. He's been blocked for certain things, he's agreed to try to not intentionally repeat the disruptive actions of the past.

I think at this point, the best advice I could give is to move forward, and as good Wikipedians in the spirit of WikiLove, presume good faith of each other and start anew.

I see him listed in the recent edit history of the talk page in question. If you're not happy with the quality of substance of his comments/responses, ask him to clarify.

If you're still not understanding, I'll be happy to try to clarify again. Though as an option, I can ask another editor (admin or otherwise) to read my comments and attempt to convey them, if it's my phrasing that's somehow confusing. - jc37 16:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"My role in this: a neutral observer. I'm not specifically a mentor, or mediator in this." I'm not sure why you keep repeating this, as I said or implied otherwise (that I'm aware of).

"And while you don't seem to understand the warning I gave Asgardian, it seems fairly clear that he did." I read and understood your warning to Asgardian. If you can explain what I said that indicates otherwise, please do so.

"he was warned concerning that, though I will note that any other editor would be allowed to boldly make such an edit. AFAIK, that's not normally a blockable offense." Blanking page valid page content, without a valid rationale (or using a deceptive or euphemistic one), against policy, and without responding to others who ask to discuss it with you, has nothing to do with "boldness". That's reckless editing, which the Boldness Policy page warns against. If Asgardian has a valid rationale to delete material, cites it, and discusses it in the interests of transparency, that's fine. But if the deleted information is valid, no rationale is given, and repeated attempts to communicate and warnings are ignored or met with hostile behavior, yes, that is disruptive behavior, and is indeed grounds for blocking. It was why he was blocked the last time, and that block was upheld. While some expressed discomfort with my being the one who did the blocking (which I responded to by alerting you of this newest situation), no one, that I recall or know of, contested the block or its legitimacy other than Asgardian. There was one instance in which Asgardian cited the guideline about volume numbers to me, and I accepted this, but this is the exception. He seems dead set on ignoring me when I refute his statements, as with his citation of CRYSTAL.

I also find this statement a bit contradictory: He was warned about something that you claim would be okay if any other editor did it? Do I take it to you mean that you disagree with the warning? If so, why did you warn him about this yourself, and why mention it now, as if to indicate that you support it?

"now that is indeed a problem (And he was blocked for 48 hours for that). But then, someone else had to be also reverting with him." When was he blocked for 48 hours? The only such block I see on his page was the upholding of his last block, and that was for making personal attacks. No mention of editing during an ongoing discussion was made, as he could not have edited anyway when blocked (unless his IP wasn't blocked). For my part, I have not been reverting his edits during this discussion.

"being an admin has absolutely no bearing on whether comments towards you are appropriate or not." I did not say or imply that being an admin has any bearing on whether comments towards them are appropriate or not. If you prefer that we exclusively use the word "user", and not "admin", we can do that, but please do not read into my inclusiveness or indecisiveness in word choice as anything other than that.

"nope, you can't force someone to talk with you." Wikipedia requires editors in a dispute to communicate. That has nothing to do with "forcing" someone to talk. Requiring something and "forcing" it are not the same thing. And yes, refusing to talk, at least as a component of the overall problem, can contribute to blocking as a necessary recourse, as aforementioned. How would ignoring repeated attempts at discussion and warnings not lead one to conclude that blocking might be needed? If a question arises as to whether a given edit or set of edits are bold or disruptive, and the editor refuses to discuss it, and he/she continues such activities, what would you prescribe instead? That the editor simply go on deleting information that others believe is valid, without oversight?

"blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive. So try to accept that actions in the past are in the past. He's been blocked for certain things, he's agreed to try to not intentionally repeat the disruptive actions of the past." If he has agreed not to repeat his disruptive actions, then I'd say that he has not lived up to that agreement, as his current actions are the same as before (this despite the fact that you admit his prior actions were disruptive, but that his current behavior is not). Yes, they are preventative. I never said or implied that blocks were punitive.

"I think at this point, the best advice I could give is to move forward, and......start anew." We have already "started anew", as I heeded Emperor's request to me to try and engage him in conversation, and as I have told you and him repeatedly, Asgardian ignores me. You say that I should ask him to clarify. If you're a neutral observer, you'd read the Talk Page, instead of just its Edit History, and you'd have seen that I already asked him to do this, many times, on that page and on his own Talk Page, and he has ignored me. The most recent time was yesterday, and he has continued editing since then, without responding to me, so I'm a bit perplexed by this suggestion of yours. This doesn't seem to be an issue of "understanding" on my part, a lack of acknowledgment on your part of what I've already said. Can you explain why you'd keep repeating the suggestion that I do what I already informed you I had done many times already? Can you explain why you restricted yourself to the History of that Talk Page instead of reading it, if you're an observer?

"If you're still not understanding, I'll be happy to try to clarify again. Though as an option, I can ask another editor (admin or otherwise) to read my comments and attempt to convey them, if it's my phrasing that's somehow confusing." You have not established that I have exhibited any lack of understanding in the first place, and I wonder if this condescending comment, along with the other fallacies in your post, reveals whether are are truly as objective as you claim. If this is truly the most constructive, "neutral" talk you can offer, I don't think any more needs to be said between you and I. I will be contacting other administrators regarding this. Thank you for your time. Nightscream (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'll respond to that last, first. It wasn't intending to be condescending in any way. I was sincerely concerned that what I was attempting to convey was (for some unknown reason) not being conveyed. The best way I know how to resolve that is to see if someone else can act as "interpreter" and perhaps help explain more clearly.

• And please feel free to contact other admins. I strongly feel that the "more eyes", the better.

• Now to your other comments - in respective order:

• I keep "repeating" it because it seems to me that you've attempted several times to draw me into the content discussion. I'm not sure that this is intentional on your part, but I felt that it was something worth clarifying, just in case.

• It was a reference to how you keep mentioning how Emperor and others have concerns about Asgardian's recent edits. Due to that, it appeared that you were unaware of either that he was warned, or the implications of the warning.

• Ok, this has several parts.

First, the removal of a section of text isn't the "blanking a page" that you're looking for. "Blanking a page" means that a "significant portion" of the article is removed. Please read WP:VANDAL. From what I can see, you are and were doing several things specifically listed as what not to do.

And, again, you can't force someone to talk with you, or even force someone to discuss their edits. You simply cannot block someone for refusing to discuss. (Unless a previous restriction has been placed - we'll get back to that) What an admin can do is if the person refuses to discuss for a significant legnth of time (and not when they are involved in the discussion), is revert the edits. If the editor continues to repeat such edits, to the point of disruption (which is a question of discernment, obviously), then the editor may be blocked for the continued (unexplained, and potentially disruptive) edits.

And my suggestions were and are suggestions to "keep trying". If you don't understand him, if you don't like how his comments are presented, if you don't feel that he's responded that way you would like, but you are still interested in resolution of the situation: keep trying. Other additional options are to request comment from others, such as by placing a note at the WP:VP, or a related WikiProject. (I presume that would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics in this case.)

I'll address his "previous block" below.

And the reason that I warned him for something that wouldn't normally be a blockable offense is that he has been instructed to provide better edit summaries for his edits. So he has a "prior restriction". I'm fairly certain that he knows and understands this. And though I've attempted to convey this to you before, perhaps now you understand more clearly per this context.

• In looking back over the block, I see that it was claimed to be for civility. In my discussion with DC, when I suggested that it be reduced to 48 hours, my intention (which is my fault for not making clear) was for the edit warring (as well as the inappropriate comments in the unblock request). And in particular: "However, he's still doing large mass edits in a single edit (and has been now for awhile, I note in his edit history), which he's supposed to try to avoid." - A specific case of "repeated edits" which he has been warned to not do. Hence why the 48 hour block was quite appropriate. While my intent was due to repeated violations of his arbcom restrictions, DC was focused on the civility issues. (The civility issue would have only been a 24 hour block, but DC was merely increasing your initial block length.) So 24 (arb) + 24 (civ) = 48. I clarified it on Asgardian's talk page (over several subsequent edits). And should it be necessary, his next block in this situation (per previous advice from User:Taxman) should be (at least) 72 hours.

• And my apologies if I have misinterpreted your usage of "admin" in this discussion. As there is the possibility that there is a "communication breakdown" (a perceived potential lack of understanding between us), I've been attempting to be as concrete in interpretation of comments as possible.

• "Wikipedia requires editors in a dispute to communicate." - No it doesn't. There is simply no requirement anywhere that an editor must discuss their edits. Though if they choose to not, their edits will likely be reverted per WP:BRD. And if they choose to not engage in the "D" portion, then it's fairly likely that their edits will not be re-inserted. If they then choose to try to re-insert (revert) without further discussion, they may be blocked, though not for the lack of discussion, but for taking the action (the reversion). A general rule of thumb: An editor is blocked for an inappropriate action. There are very rare situations (I can't think of any atm) in which an editor may be blocked for not taking an action (i.e. for not editing).

• Again, this was merely a suggestion to try to "start fresh". Sort of a: "Ok, he's been blocked, let's move on."

• And again, the suggestion is to "start fresh". And he doesn't seem to be ingoring you. (As I note on this talk page.) And I didn't restrict myself. That was merely a way to point to evidence to the contrary. But since the point (at that point anyway) was a question of whether he had responded at all, I was noting quantity, while attempting to avoid commenting on the "substance" of the comments. (As substance didn't seem necessarily relevant to that specific question.)

• And I already responded to your last points. Though I will actually go further, and endorse a posting to WP:AN if you feel that additional eyes are warranted.

• I'd like to suggest one other thing. However, my concern in suggesting is that, in reading the "tone" of several of your responses to me, I'm getting the sense that you're not taking my suggestions in the light in which they are offered. That said, I sincerely think I'd be remiss if I didn't offer you the suggestion.

If you would like to go into an admin mentorship program, I would happily endorse. There are some excellent admins who know the policies, guidelines, process, and the ins and outs of avoiding the accidental pitfalls with the tools. I personally had the happy fortune to have quite a few long-time admins who commonly associated with me even prior to my becoming an admin. And I think that their help and support was invaluable. (For example, User:Hiding coached me through my first block.) And I sincerely think you could similarly benefit.

• Anyway, as always, I hope this helps. - jc37 06:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest long message

I did get this and I will look into it. God, it's complicated. Daniel Case (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note with Emperor and will give him some time to respond in the event he may have changed his mind. If not, I'll put the block through in a couple of hours. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

IP accounts

Hello, I've been frustrated lately with long-term IP accounts refusing to sign-in (even though they're not required to) at talk: British Isles and talk:Republic of Ireland. Feel free to delete my posting at the IP-in-questions talk-page. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed my whole posting. IPs should be forced to register, after being on Wikipedia for 1-month (IMHO). GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect some long-term IPs are banned registered users, getting around their blocks. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

To be on the safe side, I'll ignore them (until they sign-in). GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fraser Institute

The Fraser Institute makes no bones about its conservatism or its opposition to Canada's medicare system. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link that should clear things up: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/fraserinstitute/ Spoonkymonkey (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article. It's from the Canadian Broadcasting, a very reputable source. I would p[refer you do this rather than waste my time. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I was a bit cranky last night. The Fraser Institute, as you can see by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp article, does studies from the point of view of pro-capitalism. It also has been engaged in a series of studies in which it tries to show Canada's medicare system operates poorly because of long waiting times for surgery and emergency rooms. To say that it's "right wing" is not meant as an insult. It is also not a stretch to say that it's anti-medicare. I suppose "right of centre" might sound a bit better. However, I don't think anyone familiar with Canadian politics would dipsute my choice of words, whether they are rightists, leftists, centrists or people involved with the Fraser Institute. I get snappy when I think I'm being dragged into discussions by Wiki-fiddlers, the type of people who run up their contribution counts by putting requests for citations all over entries and doing no real research, editing or writing. I see you do actually contribute substantially to the project, so I should have cut you some slack. You'll see most of my work involves copy editing, and that I'm not accused very often of NPOV. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Comic Book Publication Dates

I agree - I'd go with both. Personally I think volume is rather clunky and open to confusion and would be fine with using the year the new series started in, but anything that helps clarifying the situation is fine by me. It might be worth running past the Comics Project talk page to get consensus but it'd certainly be an approach I'd agree with (as "volume" doesn't really help people place it chronologically - especially as some series are long running). (Emperor (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC))

Tiger Shark

In answer to your question, see here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Titles with numerous volumes As to the mini-series, yup, will make a slight correction. There's also a vol. 4 out there as well. Asgardian (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

All-Bats

I will point that there was no source cited for the covers #1 to #8. It was surprising just because I updated that section to get asked for a source. Ax the DC site gets continuously updated, the source will disappear but the published issue will then be the source. There was no point in including a source that would be replaced in three months. The next time you have a problem of that kind, you flash the section asking for the source instead of deleting it. --Leocomix (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan Next: Saturday September 27

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

349 W. 12th St. #3

Between Greenwich & Washington Streets

By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:

• Wikis Take Manhattan main website

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan rescheduled for October 4

Wikis Take Manhattan has been rescheduled for next Saturday, October 4, due to the rain predicted for this weekend.. I hope you can make it to the new time, and bring a friend (or two)!--Pharos (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridget Marquardt divorce

Good afternoon Nightscream,
Thx 4 your edit removal of Bridet being divorced. I kept telling 'queer scout' (from this 70.108.133.72 (talk) ) but she kept reverting & putting it back in. I told her if she takes a screencap of the page that is acceptable. The link to the gray main court screen isnt ok, & that is what QS linked. Thx. 70.108.115.9 (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
_
You're welcome. However, I'm not sure if a screencap is appropriate. Also, I encourage you to register. It's free, and takes only seconds. Welcome to Wikipedia! :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
_
Afternoon. Y wouldnt a screencap be alright? So long as it shows the web adress box, and the the screencap is properly xplained when it added to wik images, it should be good right? I dont get y that website doesnt have a direct link anyways. 70.108.115.9 (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

OHOTMU

Yes, Wikipedia doesn't regard it as reliable. I will try and find the link. Unfortunately, it is proven wrong quite easily. Strength is the best example as the characters are usually far stronger than their supposed limit. Thor, for example, can lift over a million tons (to judge by feats in the comic books), not a mere hundred. So if that's incorrect, then by that logic it all has to go. By the by, I am getting another opinion on Black Bolt. Asgardian (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/editorial_guidelines#The_use_of_in-universe_statistics_and_chronology Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I've been asked to again look over recent events and postings here and elsewhere. From my end I think you're having a hard time working out how to deal with User:Asgardian. I can understand and appreciate that. It looks to me like you had issues with an edit at the Black Bolt article. You raised these on Asgardian's talk page, [8]. It then looks like Asgardian again removed info and posted why to the talk page rather than to either your talk page or his/hers. It looks to me like you may have missed that, and posted a warning on Asgardian's page, [9]. I think the warning is overly strong, but that's just my opinion. From there Asgardian reverts teh article again, and so you post another warning, [10]. Again, I think this is the wrong way of doing it. What you seem to be wanting to say to Asgardian is that he/she shouldn't be acting as he/she is, which is fair enough, but I don't think the use of the warning templates is the right way of doing that. Certainly Asgardian shouldn't have reverted the page, but it looks to some people like you are trying to use your "admin powers" to settle the dispute in your favour. I don't actually think that is true, to be honest, you just want your opinion to be respected, as is your right on Wikipedia, and you are attempting to explain that to Asgardian through your warnings. All in all, it looks to me like you're getting frustrated here. It also looks like there is a content dispute, and you both have opinions on the right way to present the article. I think there are issues with the way Asgardian is reacting, certainly not following BRD, but I think also your warnings are not helping the matter. I think you may be better of posting details of the dispute at the comics project to get more eyes on it than making it an issue with Asgardian's behaviour. Asgardian's behaviour can be better judged by outsiders. If you can demonstrate a consensus which Asgardian is acting against, you will have a position which can be better sympathised with. I don't think you're way off base here, but I think there's a better way to solve it. Get more people involved. I think in this post of yours, [11], the third paragraph, which starts off "Finally, please, no more threats" is counter-productive. It doesn't help move the debate on and is commenting on the user rather than the article. I think the first, second and fourth paragraphs are the best parts of that post and the avenues you need to concentrate on. You have made a case, and you are right that the onus is on Asgardian to reply to it. Concentrate on discussing those points, rather than the rightness or wrongness of threats, warnings and the rest of it. There is more than one way to write an article, and people should explain why they think your way is less right than their way. Hope this in some way helps. If you do find yourself getting frustrated with Asgardian, it might be better to walk away from the issue for a while or go to someone else for advice rather than responding immediately. I think your request for a review to Daniel Case is a good one, and I hope he does give some input, I'd certainly be happy to offer any advice or answer any questions you have. I tend to suffer from frustration myself. A key thing to remember is that things don't have to happen on Wikipedia immediately. They can be allowed to happen eventually. All the best, Hiding T 11:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't mean to say that behaviour is not an issue, but I just think making the argument about behaviour can be counter-productive. You're right that we should try and correct behaviour though. Hopefully the content issue will work itself out and then we can review behavioural issues. I have posted a comment on Asgardian's page regarding the need to discuss, and hopefully that'll move things forwards. Hiding T 13:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• There's not really a contradiction. In my mind you can correct behaviour by ignoring behaviour which is wrong and setting a good example through your own actions. If Asgardian refuses to talk, then there are several options. Leave the article a while, get other editors involved or revert once on a daily basis until someone gets bored. The last is not exemplary, the first can be frustrating which leaves the middle option as the best way forwards. Hopefully the issue is resolving itself. Do you want me to provide any input anywhere? Hiding T 08:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Deleted Barnstar

'Tis OK. :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Jim Lawson

The information I added earlier is common knowledge to most HVRHS graduates and staff and is even stated on the schools wiki entry, is there any way to keep it?? Sweetnorbert (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ultron

I've started a discussion here, and would be interested in your opinion on the inclusion of that content. Thanks.

In addition, I thought you should know that Asgardian has continued his deletion of material in a number of edits:

• In this edit he removed an entire section, but in his Edit Summary, he claims that he "reworked" it. I have restored it.
• In this edit, despite the fact there is currently an ongoing discussion on the Black Bolt Talk Page regarding the use of comic book titles in articles, Asgardian deleted a reference to the title in which an event took place. I restored it.
• In this edit, Asgardian deleted most of a section, calling it "fancruft". I started the discussion on that Talk Page because I think there's room to argue over this, and have not reverted it for this reason. I explained why I believe it's not "fancruft", but think we need a consensus on it.
• In this edit, Asgardian deleted two thirds of a section, claiming in his Edit Summary, "Not well written - just the facts." First of all, I explained to Asgardian some time ago that poor writing is not a valid rationale to delete material, in lieu of a rewrite. Second, by saying "just the facts", he implying that there was non-factual material in that section. As one of the editors who participated in the writing/editing of that section, I assure you, having read the books, that it is indeed facts. In addition, by deleting mention of Yellowjacket by name, Asgardian is deleting mention of the only appearance of someone under that identity in the Ultimate universe. I pointed this out to Asgardian on his Talk Page. Nightscream (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice (which you seem to have also cross-posted to others, which presumably prompted Emperor's comments, below).

To me, this looks like a content discussion. A question of whether certain content should be considered "fancruft" (a term, the general use of which, I personally am not thrilled with, as its usage is generally vague and subjective) and whether such content should be kept in an article or removed. That said, while I personally may not like the term, I have no opinion on whether it, or rather, Asgardian's implied meaning of it, is applicable in this case, which, as I noted, appears to be a content question.

As I believe you know, when it comes to Asgardian and questions of content, I by default remain neutral.

That said, considering that you have had concerns about the sections of text that Asgardian has removed in the past, perhaps a notice to the WikiProject talk page may be in order? (Perhaps even crossposting this same notice to there.)

I hope this helps. - jc37 01:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Other points

On your other points:

• The What If? is an alternate version and should be in the appropriate section. Whether it should then be trimmed down is another issue (and apparently a similar one to the Ultron problems). I'd favour a smaller section but not so minimal. The edit summary is bordering on the misleading (although one man's "reworked" is another man's "stripped to the bare bones").

• That is an issue that has come up time and time again - I can't see any reason the FCB has to completely exclude any out-of-universe material - the big problem is too much in-universe content. I have no idea why the Kenneth Branagh information isn't considered newsworthy [12] despite it being actual news in one of the leading trade publications.

• Anything ending in "cruft" should be avoided - a decent reason should be provided. I can see the reasoning behind it (to stop runaway reiteration of plot) but the exact length is tricky. Personally I'd prefer a little more content than a brief sentence as that leaves such sections awfully "listy".

• The edit summary is indeed poor - as you say "facts" makes it seem like there is some black and white dividing line and the rest is speculation, while it is in fact subjective. I am amazed something quite so simple can't be sorted out. If you want my opinion it seems like the kind of information that should be included. (Emperor (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

Indeed and I try and point out the guideline issues when they come up but I also can't follow him around and issues like whether certain wording is needed are issues you have to thrash out or get more input from other editors. As for blocking that is an issue you should raise with jc37 and/or Hiding but as I say it is often subjective and proving bannable offences looks to be tricky as it is usually this side of the line and it is more a pattern of behaviour than any specific incident. Poor/misleading edit summaries when pushing their own preferred version while the content is still under discussion is certainly a recurring issue that flies in the face of WP:CONSENSUS and borders on WP:OWN (in that the editor thinks they know the best way the article should be written). I'll leave the last call to the others but I'd suggest setting some clear lines that shouldn't be crossed: reverting when the content is under discussion (as well as misleading edit summaries). Something like that. (Emperor (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

My point is that I am chasing up obvious guideline issues but my time is finite and where it veers into areas that are more content disputes this issue is worth raising with a broader body of editors (as areas like how much information should be included in "other media" sections is a topic which touches on nearly all popular comics characters from the Big Two). It is worth noting that I have made progress on articles like Hank Pym but it sucked up a lot of my available time.

On the patterns of behaviour: these aren't usually things that would get an editor banned but it is possible to set out lines in the sand which shouldn't be crossed which then could get a user blocked. I think it is easy to show editing in their preferred version while it is under discussion (which flies in the face of WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS) and is one of a number of actions that seem to tie progress up (and waste a lot of people's time). This is an approach jc37 has already started on misleading edit summaries [13] and I'd recommend discussing further such limits with jc37 and take it from there.

On Black Bolt: I am not sure what is going on there but see this. (Emperor (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

Well, personally, what he did there was certainly along the right lines and is an angle worth pursuing. Feel free to discuss it more with him or to get more input from other editors if you aren't happy with anything. (Emperor (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

The editor who add his comments in the above-mentioned link is unfortunately all emotion and no logic. He's been trumped on a few articles by others and taken it personally. Asgardian (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet, you yourself are making personal comments about other editors. Again. Nightscream (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, you look his History and decide. That was a fairly clinical comment from myself. Asgardian (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I will look at the policy that tells us not to make personal comments, and decide that you made a personal comment. Again.

All editors whom I've observed cherry-picking the policies and guidelines they like to follow, but chucking the No Personal Attacks, Don't Bite the Newbies, Assume Good Faith, etc. policies right out the nearest window, always, without fail, find some way to rationalize this behavior. "Clinical" is simply one more. Nightscream (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Living Laser Consensus

There is on what you asked for. I just have to backtrack and find it. I think I know where it is. Asgardian (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Black Bolt & Living Laser

On your points:

• I think you've made reasonable efforts on the Black Bolt front and just ignoring requests for comments and explanation. As I've said I know of nothing which says that FCBs should be 100% in-universe, in fact the main concern is usually from an article being too in-universe.

• I think I touched on this previously - the What Ifs? are alternate versions, so the Living Laser section should be in the other versions section. I must assume the consensus referred to is one that the in other media/other versions sections should be kept trimmed back to a bare minimum. Problem is I don't know of such a consensus and, while we should keep an eye out for such sections bloating, I don't think we can practically apply such a consensus to every occurrence (this would imply it was at the level of a policy which it clearly isn't). It would, for example, make sense if the topic is fully covered in another article so you'd only need a quick overview. That case doesn't apply here - the only place this is discussed is in that section, granted it might need a bit of the fat trimming from it but that could apply to just about everything here. So in summary: Yes it needed moving, no I can't think of a justification for stripping it down to the bare bones.

Hope that helps. (Emperor (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

Again on the points:

• Yes sorry I didn't actually finish my sentence I meant something like: "his ignoring you doesn't make this go away" so if he won't engage us on the points we've made I think it is not unreasonable to move on and to add this back in. My compromise might be to start the "Publication history" section (as it needs one) and add the majority of material there and throw in {{expand}} as all the earlier publications need adding in.

• I'd recommend adding the content back in where the section is now (as if it has been simply moved). Again as a compromise, if you think it can be trimmed down a bit then go for it (it seems a bit long for a single story).

So basically move forward with the changes you and I think seem perfectly reasonable but it'd be worth doing it in the way I suggest (Black Bolt should have a PH and it seems the best place for what we have - as the comics haven't been published there isn't a lot of plot to be going on with but I don't see a problem with adding some in with out-of-universe qualifiers thrown in). (Emperor (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

Personally I prefer an integrated PH and FCB but the examples you state are the exception and not the rule - the basic approach (and the way the Comics Project suggest you start articles) is laid out at WP:CMC/X#Comic book characters. The integration tends to happen with the bigger characters with a long history (and usually when they approach the top levels of quality) but that isn't the case with Black Bolt. How do you do it? As has been done with various other characters lacking a PH: Add the section, add the relevant bit of information you want to add and then add {{expand}} as you can see at Cyclops (comics) and Vixen (comics). Now it may be that these two sections get edited together as the article pushes on to GA/FA status but it isn't a B yet, partly because it is missing a PH, it is that section which is suitably out-of-universe and can be used for character development as well as the actual issues they have appeared in. It is this section which will absorb with FCB as the article improves. Without it the article will struggle to go up much higher.

The rest of your reply is a whole different topic - I'm not sure why you move on to suggesting further measures when you haven't tried my suggestions. There is no rule he has to talk to you but if he doesn't, it rather means he is ruling himself out of having a say in the direction the articles take in their next step, so if he starts reverting again he is on thin ice.

You asked my opinion and I gave it to you - I don't think you can just decide to skip moving things forward because you've assumed what Asgardian's reaction will and seem to have moved straight on to talking about sanctions. You are perfectly welcome to ask other people for an opinion, but you might want to be clear about what you want to do: improve the articles or impose further sanctions on Asgardian - I was discussing the former. I don't see why we are discussing the latter based on what you think might happen. So to answer your question: "what point do you agree that it becomes unavoidable to make administrative decisions?" When we aren't dealing with hypothetical situations. (Emperor (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

But I have addressed the issue - the article needs a PH. This can then be used for things like "Dan Abnett and Andy Lanning will be..." etc. As I've said I know of no reason that FCB shouldn't contain things like the title especially where the story is not with us yet. This happens a lot on other articles without an eyebrow being raised (although I have tended to move some of the information to the PH to keep the FCB focused on the actual story, even if described in out-of-universe material) and I know of no reason why it shouldn't be done here.

When I say you haven't tried the suggestions I mean the ones I give at the start of this section. The ones that deal with the nest step for the articles - which is what you asked me about. I have given you my suggestions on what to do next, you are welcome to accept or ignore my advice.

Again you ask me about sanctions - as I've said before I am not uninvolved (and neither are you) and will not be making any decisions on this and will leave the call up to other admins. However, as we have spent a lot of time discussing this and provided him with plenty of opportunities to help build consensus if he attempts to keep imposing his preferred version I would support calls for further sanctions. In fact it might be wise to drop people like jc37 and Hiding letting them know that we have come up with the next steps and if Asgardian again removes the material then they should consider further sanctions. Again I'd support this - a lot of editors have put in a lot of time on this and just ignoring everything and carrying on regardless is a serious issue. Making clear where the lines in the sand are beforehand really puts the ball in Asgardian's court. I assume they have this page on their watchlist but it'd be well worth making it clear.

It is also worth pointing out that we are discussing how to deal with disruptive editors who don't flagrantly breach the guidelines (we have run into a number of editors who game the system) [14] - it will clearly take longer than more blatant violations but I feel it is possible. (Emperor (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

That is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. We've talked this through, you've tried to get him engaged in debate and then he just goes and removes it anyway. I'd recommend talking to an uninvolved admin about getting another block imposed. I'd also make them aware of any other changes you are planning on making (and point them to places like this which demonstrate that you have done what you can from your end) so that they can be ahead of the curve if it happens again elsewhere. (Emperor (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

Sure give it a go - it might be that some "fatigue" over the issue sets in but worth bringing it up. Especially if there are specific guidelines/best practice you want to run past people. Getting clarity and consensus on things will make your life easier.

Also keeping discussing it with him as he does listen to reason - it just takes more time than usual.

In addition keep Daniel Case and other uninvolved admins up to speed as it helps demonstrate the lengths you are going to in order to resolve matters and it makes it easier for them to spot and assess issues that arise and keep an eye on problem areas. (Emperor (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Well you can't make them ;) However, if you lay out the specific issues and ask for input that should get more replies than a more general post. That'll help build consensus. (Emperor (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

It still seems stuck in a rut - I see you have asked other editors for input so we'll see if that helps. (Emperor (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

scream

hey nightscream just wanted to know, shouldn't there be a link at the top of the football player Corey Clarks' page as well letting people know if they want to read about Corey Clark the singer to follow the link to his page? It's displayed like that on the singers page so wouldn't it make sense to do the same for the football players page? Talk to you soon Liaishard (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Calum Forrester

I read an article last night on an up and coming scottish rugby player and thoroughly enjoyed it. Tonight I have come on and seen that you have deleted the large majority of information and, to be honest, I am furious. As a long time fan of Glasgow Warriors I stand by the accuracy of the article and would say that what you have done amounts to little more than vandalism. Despite having no knowledge of the player, the team, or the accuracy of claims, you have seen fit to delete whatever you fancied. It does not concern you and you would be well advised to mind your own business. If you don't like the page...don't read it!

Reading the other posts on this page, it seems to me that this is how you get your kicks, as I am not the first to be infuriated by your tampering. In my opinion, this is pathetic.

I have also noticed that you have written and contributed to many articles and, therefore, I am presuming that you would be pretty pissed off if someone went and deleted them all.

Dont make me do it...get a life and stop pissing on other peoples cornflakes! This is your one and only warning, don't touch the calum forrester page again Canon865 (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Section header linking

Everything got lumped together there.

WP:MOSHEAD is clear on this - links should not be added to section headers: "Section names should not normally contain links, especially ones which link only part of the heading; they will cause accessibility problems."

They look horrible (especially when someone adds a footnote to the section header) and just aren't needed. Either {{seealso}} or {{main}} (depending on how much the other article covers) and/or working the link into the first sentence is a far better option. I try and remove these when I see them (when I'm not distracted by doing something else). (Emperor (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Proposed deletion of David Lopez (artist)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article David Lopez (artist), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RMHED (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Issues regarding Asgardian

I'm not -quite- exactly sure what you wish me to say or opinine upon. Clicking through the link reveals a very long discussion between you and Asgardian. I have not finished the discussion because I need to sign off real soon but so far, I have agreed with everything you said concerning Asgardian. But I am also not quite sure if I am nuetral. He used to do his well-known negative behavior with me but, again with me, he has lately been the veyr model of a modern Wiki editor. In conclusion, he has ticked me off in the past but I agree with what you are saying. Feel free to ask more detailed questions of my opinions. Lots42 (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm nuetral on the topic of Asgardian either. He -has- behaved, but he has done a lot, a lot more misbehaving. As for the other stuff, I'll need to mull it over. Lots42 (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've posted some thoughts at User_talk:Asgardian#Living_Laser. The rest of it is taking a while for me to figure out. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Lots42's first few sentences here, but while the user name "Asgardian" seems familiar to me, no specific memories of behavior come to mind. Furthermore, there are those who would say that my behavior in Wiki is negative (I deny the validity of such criticism, of course). Besides, I appear to be significantly crippled by having no idea what an "FCB" is. There is only one point that I would address: While it is true that according to Wiki regs, citable sources are all that is relevant and one's own knowledge of a given article's subject is unimportant, there is no doubt whatsoever that strict enforcement of such a policy would be to the encyclopedia's detriment. I had a big dispute with one editor that a decades-after-the-fact published statement by Tom DeFalco about a Marvel magazine of the 1970s was unchallengable by my personal memories that said statement was completely lacking in factual accuracy, until I linked in a "third party opinion" ruling that when the topic of an article or section of an article is a magazine, the issues themselves are citable sources. The common sense of the situation was irrelevant to him because he had a published and citable statement from someone who would seem to be a good source. If I had not known of that ruling, a piece of crap would probably stand posted in an article. I hope that accomplishes something, and otherwise, I'm sorry that I can't help. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not move my remarks to the bottom of the page because I'm not joining that part of the discussion until I understand it better. Doczilla _STOMP! 02:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the other section, but I don't understand it to my satisfaction. Asgardian's history is long and complicated, and far screwier things have happened in the past than what that one section indicates, so I'm not jumping in and casting judgment down there until I can work my way through all the other pages involved in the current set of events and really have a sense of what's going on and what's different this time. Doczilla _STOMP! 07:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

While I've never had any dealings in the past with Asgardian, I've read other discussions involving him in other articles in the past, though I've never gotten involved in them. I'll have to read over it more before forming a solid opinion in this particular matter. In those past discussions I've read, he strikes me as the type of editor that wants things the way he wants them and doesn't really give a hang about policy or consensus. He's been involved in a number of conflicts in the past with a similarly minded editor User:David A. Dave, I've had experience with and both he and Asgardian seem to have ownership issues regarding some articles. They want what they want regardless of what policy or consensus says. As I've said, I'll have to read over this particular situation with him more before forming a solid opinion.Odin's Beard (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:10.25.07SlottDavidAtHanleybyLuigiNovi.JPG

Image:10.25.07SlottDavidAtHanleybyLuigiNovi.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Dan Slott and Peter David.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Dan Slott and Peter David.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

File:11.15.07MargaretDowneyByLuigiNovi.jpg is now available as Commons:File:11.15.07MargaretDowneyByLuigiNovi.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Section length, Book titles, et al.

My history with him is largely negative, so I don't know if I'd really be a neutral voice. Your arguments against him are better than mine would be, anyway. Good luck. --DrBat (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter if the same admins were involved in the rejection of my appeal and in Asgardian's block or not. Administration as a whole is supposed to be consistent on such things. --Ted Watson (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You posted on my page: Hypocrisy is not an accusation leveled at a decentralized group. If you cannot see the complete fallacy of that—and the fact that you wrote it says you can't—there is nothing to be gained from continuing this discussion. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I said "there is nothing to be gained from continuing this discussion" and you have proved it. Please stay off my talk page. Thank you. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:MorilloMixerCover.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:MorilloMixerCover.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? meco (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Supernanny logo

I don't normally deal with images because, as it says on my user page, I'm blind. But as far as I know, logos are non-free content. The image can either be speedily deleted under CSD I9, as it has an invalid license, or a non-free content rationale can be added. I'm not sure which would be best for the image in question since I can't see it to compare it with the original logo. Ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Graham87 23:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Darwin XMDG-2.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Darwin XMDG-2.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Living Laser

Hi, I've had a go at cleaning this article up, and frankly I've largely failed. There is *nothing* to work with beyond plot summary and you cannot make a house without bricks. Take a look a the changes and see what you think. I'm not sure how the article can be developed further because unlike say Galactus (which I also cleaned up), there seems to be virtually no third party sources to drawn upon. It's a problem. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nightscream. I've been away for a few days and just got your message on my talk page. As always, I'm flattered to be asked for my opinion, and I can see from the discussion at User talk:Asgardian that my name came up in relation to fancruft.

I try to go by this yardstick: Would a non-comics fan, a person who knows nothing about the character, be able to understand the article and get a sense of significant milestones in that character's history. It's like if I go an article about a character in an ancient Greek drama: Will I get the references the other characters, places, and events — will they be in context and perspective? I can't say I'm getting that with Living Laser as it now stands, partly because a lot of character's biography appears in Publication History.

I started reading the Asgardian-block posts, and then realized that the section was much, much longer than I'd imagined, and I stopped short. In general — and I say this as someone who has had many contentious dealings and an ArbCom case with Asgardian — I do find that his FCB edits are written in a more encyclopedic WP:TONE than in a lot of other comics articles, and have appropriately streamlined prose (i.e., using a single word to replace a multi-word phrase that says the same thing). And he does weed out a great deal of material that matters to comics fans but would be, I believe, simply dense minutiae to the general-audience reader at which Wikipedia is aimed. This doesn't excuse Asgardian or anyone else from getting into an edit war or being uncivil, of course.

All this is more in the way of big-picture perspective than practical suggestion, I'm afraid — the specifics of this issue are pretty wide-ranging and have been debated for almost two weeks, it looks like. Hopefully, I've been helpful. If I get a chance to go in and try to help with Living Laser, I'd be glad to. Do let me add, though I'm sure it's not necessary to say, that you're a constructive editor and a good colleague, and that differences in content can almost always be worked out. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Powers and Abilities of the Hulk merger into the main page

There is a discussion about the merging of "Powers and Abilities of the Hulk" into the main page. I'd appreciate if you'd like to chip in. I'm extremely short on time and energy nowadays. Thanks in advance. Dave Dave (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (re: message on my talk page re: South Park)

After reviewing a few policies, I was inclined to ignore Anthony cargile, but he really did seem to be hounding me, so thanks for the intervention. I didn't mean offence by using the term "fluff". A lot of the "cultural references" for other South Park episodes seemed to be taken directly from fan wikis, so I should have said Original Research when I meant it. I wasn't looking for an edit war, I've gone through the entire run of South Park episodes (all previous eleven seasons) and scrubbed a lot of OR and speculation already. I'm looking through the articles on Star Trek too but surprisingly enough the fan base has kept things pretty decent on those pages. Alastairward (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream. I would appreciate if you would provide your insite in the discussion Final Compromise under the Talk Page of The China Probrem. Thank you. --J miester25 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that compromise on the china probrem talk page. I fully support it, and if the others will as well, then I don't see why it shouldn't go into effect as soon as possible for all SP episodes. Anthony cargile (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

He's at it again. I went ahead with the compromise, and yet he is still complaining about it. He added the fact tag for us, but is still talking about deleting the section. I'm really sick of fighting this, and have better things to do, but come on, we had a perfectly valid WP policy following solution and yet he still fights it! Anthony cargile (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I found another perpetrator: User:24.174.130.135. Unlike Alastairward, who has brought things up for discussion, this user just completely removed Episode Continuity, which was sourced, and harped on Alastairward for removing original research, which was right on Alastairward's part. 24.174.130.135 violated WS 5.1.1 which i stated in this user's talk page and i provided precedents set by admin Rogerbrent, that this user also violated. I would greatly appreciate if you would tell 24.174.130.135 him to stop removing sourced information and abusing users such as Alastairward. --J miester25 (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: what you said on my talk page recently, I'll take it on board when leaving edit summaries in future. Alastairward (talk)

Guinea pig page moves

Hello, Nightscream! Regarding the capitalization of mammal articles, please be advised that the current consensus is to leave existing articles as they are. For a horrifying look into the background of this see:

• Talk:Iriomote Cat#Edit warring (2–4 March 2008)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#misapplication of WP:BIRD (declined as content dispute) (2–4 March 2008)
• Talk:Bobcat#Capitalization again (29 February – 1 March 2008)
• Talk:Fishing Cat#Capital Common Name (29 February – 1 March 2008)
• Talk:Canadian Lynx#Name (29 February 2008)
• Talk:Cougar (June–August 2007, 25 September–10 November 2007)
• Talk:Cheetah (5–10 February 2007,11 August–7 October 2007)
• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style -- Discussion and consensus at WP:MOS about animal common names and the capitalization issue (July 2007 - August 2007)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals/Archive 3#Capitalization re-visited (March 2008)
• Talk:Snow Leopard#Secondary and Tertiary Sources on Capitalization (June - July 2008) (This is the most pertinent one)

So, the only real consensus reached at WP:MAMMAL is to leave articles how they are; you really only have a choice if you are creating a new article. Just thought I would give you a reason why I reverted the page moves.

Also, I see you did a cut & past page move on Montane guinea pig. As an admin, I hope you just had a brain freeze on that one! Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:AIDS denialism

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Talk:AIDS denialism. In particular, plaase do no revert other editors to re-introduce unsourced or poorly-sourced defamatory material. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please familiarize with WP:TALK and WP:BLP. The stuff I removed was obvious blp and talk violation. The other comments were a response to it so their out of context w/o the first ones so I took it all out. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 16:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You commented at my talk, I want be sure you know what blp says. In the lead, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages user pages, and project space." Pls don't make accusings of people until you read policies. Thx RetroS1mone talk 02:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. RetroS1mone talk 02:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You did not sign your comment at my talk page where you said you were familiar with blp policy but you said it only was for actual article namespace of biographies. I am sorry I did not look at how long you are contribuing I was giving you a frinedly reminder. Pls do not accuse me of incivility as you have now done a few times in last post. When some one has a comment and says, "Robert Gallo will be exposed for the fraud he is," that is what the IP editor said, that is not discussing a source that is an obvious blp violation and if you don't know it, four years or waht ever on Wikipedia, people should tell you. And if you are not knowing the blp policy is for talk pages etc. then people should tell you. That is what I did. Removing BLP violation is not censorship it is major Wikipedia policy. RetroS1mone talk 04:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

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

You said at Jimbo's talk page "The assertion was that Gallo “falsified documents”. The use of four different synonyms to describe this assertion is yours, and yours alone, and the temperament behind such a choice in language seems rather unnecessary and POV-ish."

IP editor said,

• "Gallo falsified documents to claim HIV isolation"
• "These same documents are than manipulate by Gallo HIMSELF"
• "the day will come when Gallo will ahve to answer for his fraud"

So the IP editor is saying, Gallo is a liar and forger for falsifying documents, Gallo is a fraud, I summarized cheat bc doing science like that is cheating.

Stop being tendentious Nightscream. Please strike your accusation of me. Think about your position and what it looks like for a admin acting like this. thx, RetroS1mone talk 01:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did you say this? You said "you couldn't resist editing your own post by adding yet another personal accusation, this time about my being "tendentious", and about "how I look", etc." I never edited my own post. I added a new comment responding to your personal attack on my NPOV at Jimbo's talk page.

Then you say you will not talk to me any more. How do you think we resolve problems if not by dialog, you are the one that is urging dialog even against blp policy. Is dialog good when you want it and bad when every one disagrees with you? RetroS1mone talk 02:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area Last: 6/01/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

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) 22:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss your disagreement on Wikipedia policy at talk page for WP:BLP

Nightscream Jimbo Wales' talk page is not where you should talk about your ideas about wp:blp that are clearly against consensus, when you want to change the policy pls go to WP:BLP talk page.

WP:BLP says "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material" You restored potentially libel material about Robert Gallo w/o even knowing what the source was, like you admitted, w/o asking me or any body why the source is bad and w/o looking it up yourself. This can be damaging to Wikipedia and it is very bad behavior from an administrator, my opinion. I will report to the blp noticeboard when you keep doing this. I am not being incivil, i am concerned your understanding on major WP policies is so far out from consensus. RetroS1mone talk 01:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:216.73.77.216

Just an FYI, but per Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses, IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked. I have unblocked and re-blocked the IP for 6 months. VegaDark (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, they should only be used for registered accounts. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

Hi Nightscream. I've been looking over Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, and it appears they have a point about the talk pages. In the latest version, it says: "These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages." Also, it appears that there is an official Wikipedia:Libel policy, which though you're right it wouldn't meet the legal definition of libel, but still it is policy here. Still, I really don't like the idea of changing someone else's comments; perhaps another solution can be thought out.

BTW, are you bringing your video camera to the meetup? I really liked the fancy camerawork you did in March :) Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Nightscream, I didn't see your note until today- I work in Finance and have been off Wikipedia for a month now due to the financial crisis. Thanks for inviting my opinion. --Kontar (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:TVGNOrleansCast.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:TVGNOrleansCast.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 15:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:9.9.08DKTreacheryByLuigiNovi.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:9.9.08DKTreacheryByLuigiNovi.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:9.9.08DKTreacheryByLuigiNovi.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Good image additions

Nice of you to get the Carmine Infantino and the better Bill Sienkiewicz‎ images in!  And, yeah, from my experience, Infantino really is that grumpy! Nice work, N. -- Tenebrae (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And Michael Golden and Larry Hama. Nice! -- Tenebrae (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

CGC image

Thanks for the CGC image! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:AIDS denialism and BLP

Hi Nightscream, I am very worried about your mis-understanding, my opinion, on WP:BLP now you have added links to the blp violations you restored before at AIDS denialism talk page, I have made a new ANI thread on it here. I am very sorry but i do not think you still understand BLP and it is not good keeping on putting links to blp violations that were put there by people who are banned for lots of violations. It is not personal, i just think other people need to know about what you are doing. RetroS1mone talk 03:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Simone's edit summary was a little abusive, failed to assume good faith (you could have just made an error, and I think you did ... what makes him think you did that on purpose?), and I will warn him, but his latest post to Jimbo's page has a point ... the note should not link to the post that was removed (In fact, IMO, that edit should be oversighted or at least selectively deleted, as the libel problem is that it states a defamatory allegation as if it were fact). Readd the note but without the link, and consider selectively deleting the edit in question. Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask Jimbo for clarification on this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream, I responded on Daniel Cases intervention here. You have a right to complain at other admins and Jimbo Wales, but I think it would also be good that you talk to me directly and not call me obnoxious. I am just trying to make sure people follow a very clear policy and not keep restoring and linking blp violations. I am sorry when you think my one edit summary was rude but I was very exasparated you would come back a week later and link to a blp violation after Jimbo and Sheffield and me showed how you were wrong about blp policy on talk pages. I called it promoting bc making something more visible is promoting it, sorry when that was not your try, but first you restored it w/o researching it and then you linked to it. RetroS1mone talk 00:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Weinstein

You are correct about "Entourage". And also about use of first name. And I have no difficulty with some of your other minor edits. Most of the information in the first two sections - now restored - is detailed in the Biskind book - which has a huge amount of history about the Weinsteins - not all of it negative. The article itself needs work. Weinstein is someone with considerable achievements just in terms of Oscar wins and nominations - and financial success. Yet the "criticism" section is larger than the details of his successful career. This seems disproportionate. What do you think? Davidpatrick (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Winnebago

Thanks, responded on my talk page. Plastikspork (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not exactly sure, but I suppose it doesn't matter unless someone wants to review the tape and look for the logo. Thanks for all your helpful edits and discussion. (By the way, let me know if you want me to voice my input on the "is/was" controversy brewing on Coral Smith). Plastikspork (talk)

Thor (Marvel Comics)

Good edit on the intro, and good explanation. Also, kudos again on adding much-needed images of comics professionals -- I just saw Herb Trimpe and Joe Sinnott. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Challenge Table

I know you essentially created and helped mold The Real World: Brooklyn page, so I began a discussion at the talk page about the Challenge table being in the page. Now, I do understand that they may be involved in a Challenge soon, but I highly doubt it will be the Deul II, or any other one for at least six months, so rather than having it there now, maybe we can add it at a later date. As it is now, it will be wasted space that eventually someone is gonna mention and ask about. Til then Cheers!--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

IP block needs renewing.

You blocked 68.209.168.216 last month, for a month, for continued editing problems. One was his editing to insert 'superhero' and 'supervillain' all over the character pages of numerous character articles. He's at it again contribs. Pleaes renew the block, since he clearly hasn't learned and doesn't care? Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

South Park Pandemic Edit

You posted on my talk page about not citing sources regarding the South Park episode "Pandemic". I added that several of the lines spoken by background actors were identical (in terms of actual words and their inflection and pitch) to lines spoken in the film Cloverfield, at points in the episode which most obviously parodied the movie. I don't believe a citation is needed in this case - if you have seen the film and the episode you will agree that the lines are spoken in exactly the same way and placed within the attack sequence in the same way - the episode and film themselves are the citation. An appropriate analogy would be asking me to cite "the sky is blue" within the Sky article - my answer would be "Citation: look outside". Burningmace 02:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sicko

I still feel Sean Hannity's contribution is unnecessary, but I don't have the time or will to contest it. Dynablaster (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:SilvermanCartoon.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:SilvermanCartoon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC) --Skier Dude (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 07:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Asgardian again

Asgardian continues in his neverending attempts to distort story elements from the Thanos maxiseries. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thanos&action=history As a final resort (after around a year of enduring his attempts to make it severely misleading, and eventually mostly allowing him to get his way) I've temporarily uploaded a panorama of all the relevant elements from the story in question for anyone to use as reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thanos.jpg Your assistance to find a solution would be appreciated. Dave (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Because I am not that familiar with the details of Thanos, and because I don't know which edits you're referring to, I don't really see what specific aspects of Asgardian's edits you're referring to. Linking me to the Edit History of the article as you did doesn't really help. I looked at the most recent edit by him, and it seems that what he did was to remove vague time references (which I agree with), and make minor changes in terms of grammar and image placement (which at present I see as rather neutral). If there is a specific edit you're referring to, it is customary to use Diff links, and to explain precisely what aspect of them violates guidelines/policy. Right now, the only behavior on his part I see that violates WP policy is the language in his post above, including the section title he originally chose (which I changed to a more civil one). Since he's been blocked for issues pertaining to incivility and communicating with others, I'll warn him about that, and look into referring this to an uninvolved admin or noticeboard. Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There is also the temporary image collage, which contains all of the inaccuracies in question, and is 'easily' skimmed as a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thanos.jpg

The text I feel is misrepresentative is:

"Thanos discovers the truth and attempts to stop Galactus but is easily outmatched. As Hunger begins to enter their universe, Galactus stalls the entity until it adapts to his power, and Thanos fails to destroy the portal that separates it from the majority of its being. Thanos then distracts Hunger and forces Rigel-18 to collide with another planet while detonating a large nuclear arsenal at the point of impact. Galactus survives the explosion, and Hunger is believed destroyed, although a tiny remnant of the organism apparently survives by attaching itself to Galactus and then fleeing. Thanos states that although Galactus' intent was noble, his continued consumption of inhabited worlds will eventually unite the universal population against him, including Thanos himself."

The problems I had were the following:

It is mentioned that Thanos is easily outmatched by Galactus to (appropriately) keep the scales of the two separate and avoid misunderstandings, which is correct as Thanos states that his "personal power is lilliputan compared to [Galactus] might", and after blasting Galactus off his feet (with no actual damage), Thanos is almost unconscious from a single blast despite activating all of his shields. The problem is the suspicious combination with the soon following phrase: "Galactus stalls the entity until it adapts to his power", which gives the appearance that it is a roughly even confrontation. It is not. It is stated outright, first that Hunger is far higher up on the food chain than Galactus, as the latter eats planets, while Hunger eats entire 'dimensions'/universes. Later during the actual confrontation, that Galactus' power is "nothing compared to power backed by an entire reality" which Galactus affirms ("Yes. I sense this to be true"). Also he does not even manage to stall the small piece of Hunger between one frame and the next. :

Second, the sentence: "Galactus survives the explosion, and Hunger is believed destroyed". THis gives appearance that the entire Hunger entity is completely annihilated by the explosion while Galactus easily withstands it. Galactus is explicitly stated (by himself) to have "barely [survived]" and by Thanos to have had only "60% chance of survival", while Thanos' and Galactus' endeavour was always to "cut [Hunger] off from the bulk of [its] being"/stop it from entering, and later again "separated from the vast bulk of its being". The best way to word it would be to phrase it as: "Galactus "barely" survives the explosion, and the Hunger is believed cut off from the majority of its being", alternately "the entered segment of Hunger is believed destroyed".

Formerly I also had a problem with that it is stated that Galactus' intent was "noble". In fact Thanos repeatedly berates Galactus for "[breaking the] social contract with the rest of the universe" by "[consuming] without any regard to the effects of your ravaging". That the inhabitants of the Universe have "little sympathy for this gluttony" and will eventually "join forces to put an end to the peril that is you". Thanos mereley states that finally attempting to find alternate sources of nourishment to populated planets was "the proper thing to do". He dismisses Galactus statement of a "manifest destiny" for "others [to] die so that I may live", observes that Galactus' "monstrous ego almost destroyed [him] and the Universe", and that he has "been given a second chance" to behave differently. However this has apparently been kept rectified. (For how long=?)

Happy Hollidays to you as well btw. Dave (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've made sure that Asgardian can't get away with continuing to lie in this case anymore he's very blatantly trying the other solution. Your input would be appreciated. For reference please check here, here, and here. Dave (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

IP blocking

Just FYI, I recently had an unblock request from the IP 64.210.199.232, which you unblocked. I unblocked it, as it is a dynamic IP, but I noticed your block was set as an indef block. IPs shouldn't be blocked indef, as all IPs are eventually reassigned. Typically the max an IP should be blocked is 1 month. Prodego ^talk 21:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't that recent (back in April). Regarding IPs, dynamic IPs are shared among many people. The person behind it one week, one day, even one hour, may not be the one behind it the next. Typically those should be blocked repeatedly (e.g. several 24 hour blocks, or a 12 hour, 24 hour, 48 hour progression) but not for too long. Static IPs are assigned to one person, but most aren't truly static. An example is Comcast Cable, Comcast IPs are reassigned every 2 or 3 years. These could be blocked for up to 6 months. It is usually best to assume an IP is dynamically assigned, unless you know for certain it isn't. Prodego ^talk 16:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

A Good Year!

		The Real Life Barnstar
		For your reliable camerawork in filming a year of presentations at the New York City Meetups, and for thereby helping spread our conversations to the wider wiki world.--Pharos (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, N.

Happy New Year! Hope it's off to a good start. -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, darn. Well, I'll go take a look. He is so capable of such good work, yet at the same time, working with him can sometimes be difficult. -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops

This was my bad. Thank you for fixing it! ✼ American Eagle (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use of image

Hi, I am drafting an article on my brother (yes, I am aware of WP:COI). Can I please use your image for that? See here. Thanks in advance. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Why is your name nightscream —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetnorbert (talk • contribs) 05:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC) 05:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

because... i am curious.... about this charachter....Sweetnorbert (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

what are the charachters hopes and dreams?Sweetnorbert (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

im not going to ask twice, reveal to me the secrets, the secrets of...nightscream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetnorbert (talk • contribs) 05:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:TDT-Treachery1.jpg)

You've uploaded File:TDT-Treachery1.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Brooklyn

Yeah, I think the "sole" word in there was the source of my almost anger over it..and the longer I looked at it, the more it sounded to be slightly rude to say that she's the sole cast memeber of any race, whether her or anyone else..I think how it is now is fine, though.

You're invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 18th, Columbia University area Last: 11/01/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

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) 02:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Bob McLeod (comics)

Hello. You removed McLeod's place and date of birth and information about his education, claiming that it was unsourced. That's incorrect. The source is the first reference in the article (his bio in the Kraven's Last Hunt TPB). I have restored the information and am giving you a head's up so you don't remove it in error again. --JamesAM (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Mighty Avengers

Your copy editing skills are much better than mine. Have added some sales history and reception to Mighty Avengers. If you get the chance (and time) would appreciate some help tidying it up. Thanks! Stextc (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Stextc (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Real World Brooklyn

Thanks. Understand your point. I'll change it just the facts, though it seems obvious that he is closeted. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#Regrets

No problem. I hope you feel better. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

File:10.1.07YankeeCandleInteriorNewportMallbyLuigiNovi.jpg

Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:10.1.07YankeeCandleInteriorNewportMallbyLuigiNovi.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Fall2001TimeOutNY.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Fall2001TimeOutNY.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!

New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza Next: February 6-7, at the Met Museum and the Brooklyn Museum Last: 01//2008

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

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 automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:NatuTriptych.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:NatuTriptych.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Check these out

We are currently reworking the articles, with the out of universe style with references out of article to make things more palatable. Unfortunately, it has to be all or nothing for the sake of consistency. It has been used with success on Impossible Man and Ms. Marvel, with more to come. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peregrine_Fisher and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#Stand_up_and_take_notice.21

By the by, that comment you linked was not uncivil. The editor undid a great deal of good work and reinserted work with all the problems previously mentioned. That's fact. Asgardian (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian block

Thanks for the note. As you can see from my talk page he has a new "thing", rewriting in an out-of-universe tone which has caused quite a bit of friction (the underlying cause of the examples you link to) and my attempts to point out he was misunderstanding the policies just got me accused on being condescending. There is an improvement drive (and concerns about in-universe material) but it is not a green light for his edits, the section he links to is more a focused and group effort to improve selected articles that have enough material to make improvement go smoothly. I suppose with time and effort it might be possible to get the message through to him but I don't have that to spare at the moment and, again, I wonder how much time and effort we have to expend on one user. Not that I have given up but there are limits to what one person can do. Do you think it is worth taking this to some kind of arbitration committee? The problem is that, once the ban is up, we are back to square one again and we either take it up a notch or keep doing this, which is only going to end one way. (Emperor (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Fair enough, although I suspect others might object more strenuously to this - he is a knowledgeable and active editor. However, if you don't agree with his interpretation of the guidelines, and as I said I think he has misunderstood them, then there is zero flexibility even when you point out the relevant parts (see recent history of Ms. Marvel, Rhino (comics), Abomination (comics), etc. - note I assume User:203.58.179.34 is also him when he isn't logged in). I will look into leaving him a note pointing out the guidelines because if he does take them on board he could make useful contributions. (Emperor (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Just want to add my support of the block. I've warned him myself recently to no avail. I think, looking at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, if we consider the POV to be a POV of how the page should look, then a lot of that page would apply. Hiding T 15:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Its a good point - a number of us tried to redirect his efforts and point out problems but he ploughed on regardless, clearly in disregard of consensus. (Emperor (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

It is hard knowing what to do. I had hoped the arb-com sanctions would help, but it didn;t really. I'm not really sure what the next step is. I'm not really sure Arb-com would be helpful again. It's a tough nut to crack. Also, I've just had a message from Asgardian on my talk page. I'll reply there. Hiding T 23:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-constructive conduct

Regarding my conduct during your last block of Asgardian, which you have called into question on Emperor's talk page, I would like to re-iterate my position that that was a bad block because you were involved in the situation as an editor. It's long standing practise that we do not block people with whom we are in dispute. If you still dispute that point, I will gladly as for a review of the whole situation on the administrator's noticeboard. I had thought the matter had been resolved amicably, but it appears you still harbour resentment and believe my stance in the past was not one held in good faith given that you state my conduct was not constructive. I apologise if you feel that because someone disagrees with you it means they are not conducting themselves in a constructive manner. I would, as I say, be quite happy to demonstrate how constructive on behalf of Wikipedia I was being by having the situation evaluated by a wider number of admins at the noticeboard. Hiding T 00:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Off hand, I usually dismiss unblock requests like his, but in doing some investigating, it does appear at the outset that you are involved in the editing of the same articles he is, and as such may lack appropriate neutrality in dealing with the situation. It may be a proper block, but it probably should have been given by an uninvolved admin. Could you please start a thread at WP:AN and request that uninvolved admins review the block? If you start the thread yourself, it would probably be taken as an act of extreme good faith on your part to ask for a review of your own block. Like I said, the block may likely stand as is, and I am not saying he should be unblocked, but I think this needs additional eyes on it. Thank you in advance for your understanding in this matter. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Pandemic

The rape comment seems pretty much out of the blue without pointing out the episode continuity from The China Probrem. Therefore, this clarification belongs in the article - moreover, it is being mentioned on the SouthParkStudios FAQ page exactly for this reason. Please explain why you aggressively removed this edit without at least trying to discuss the matter - I'd very much appreciate some good faith. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This, of course, applies when you watch the episode - I never said the rape comment was in the article. It's unusual and pretty much throws you off unless you get the connection. It's as simple as that - why do you fight so hard to keep these seven measly words out of the article? It's properly referenced and also notable, please stop removing. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm on and offline this weekend, I didn't really check back on the talk page. I'll revert it back. Alastairward (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nightscream - thank you for the good faith. I truly hope you and Alastairward are not "trading" reverts to keep each other from getting blocked :)

Anyway, I hope the way it is in the article right now is good enough. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If that's all NotAnotherAliGFan has to add, I don't see how we're getting anywhere. The information is still there as a bit of trivia and good faith on their behalf isn't forthcoming. Alastairward (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with this south park-related wikiarguing bullshit, I'm staying out of this for good. I've stopped using wikipedia as a south park reference, and thus I'll stop trying to contribute to the project especially as far as the south park articles go since they are "owned" by alastair. Slashdot just did a whole story on this, you may want to look into it. Thanks, but I'm done with this mess. Another-anomaly (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you need me to comment on that episode, specifically the "rape comment." Djamo (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Zack and Miri.

Should we rewrite the plot section? I think it's kinda bad as is, and I'm thinking of rewriting tomorrow or sometime this weekend. What do you think? --HELLØ ŦHERE 04:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

NotAnotherAliGFan's Block

He has been blocked three times. 1) 24 hours 2) 48 hours and 3) 72 hours is a standard increase (though I prefer 12 hours for first blocks like that). The user and editing pattern are familiar to me already. You think there's something I've missed? All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ambigramarticle

A couple of things...

1. Thanks for removing the fact tags. I'd been meaning to do that, but another editor who acts like he owns the article and gets to decide what's in it was trying to edit war with me, so I was waiting for it to cool down to do any edits restoring things, and this was one of them.
2. I'm curious why you thought this phrase "As a result, some people still call ambigrams inversions." violates WP:V or WP:BLP. On the former, I would say this is common knowledge. A lot of people introduced through Scott's book think the name is Inversion. I personally run into people all the time. You can find plenty of web pages as well (googling for "inversion also called ambigram" gets 625 hits). On the latter, it seems to me that this has nothing to do with WP:BLP (is it the "as a result" part?).
3. There are a number of pending issues on the Talk page where an extra voice would be useful. If you have time, I'd appreciate if you would take a look and add your comments.

Thanks (if you reply here, I will see it)

RoyLeban (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources for Kim introducing the term Inversion -- his own book, Scientific American, Hofstadter's book, Polster's book. Maybe Langdon's book as well, but I'm at work and don't have it handy to check. Hofstadter's book (I'm sure) and Polster's book (I'd have to check) also say that after ambigram was coined and accepted, ambigrammists (except Kim, at the beginning) stopped using the term "inversion". But all that's about the "as a result" part of the sentence and I somehow doubt that anybody (in a book) explicitly tied continued use of the term to Kim's introduction of it. Yet, since he is the only person who introduced it, it can only be traced back to him. This is one of the places where I disagree with Wikipedia's definition of OR.

On the other half, the term is still in use by some people. That's just a statement of fact and "some" is a low threshhold. You can find current uses in many places, so how is that OR? Citing some random places that uses the term "inversion" is a waste. As a comparison, I bet you can't find the phrase "Some people call him Jimmy" in any reference work on Jimmy Carter, but it's just a fact. FYI, a search for ("some people call him jimmy" carter) gets 0 hits in Google and in book search.

I'd be fine with just the second half -- my question is, is it valuable enough to have in the article?

RoyLeban (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine responding here. Some people don't like it. If we don't wrap this up shortly, let's move it to the article talk page. But this seems pretty minor, so let's just finish it.

No offense intended, but you're not telling me anything I don't know. I'm a long-time Wikipedia editor. There are plenty of (already cited) sources that Kim originated the term "Inversion" (see Hofstadter, Polster, for example, which are already cited in the article). Are you arguing otherwise? Similarly, it is easy to find many sources that use the term "Inversion" today -- they're all over the Internet, for example. I don't think one needs to site any one of them in particular to consider the statement "some people..." to be sufficiently verified (e.g., try this search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ambigram+"also+called+an+inversion"&btnG=Search). Were the statement "x% ..." or "most people" or anything like that, it would be different. I liken this to a statement like "The web site wikipedia.org is called Wikipedia". The statement is true. Anybody can verify that it is true because there are many places on the Internet that do so. We need not find a source that states the fact explicitly. The fact that they do so is the verification itself.

So, to clarify, I am not the source for the statement that Kim originated the term. I am also not the source that "some people" still call them Inversions. The only question is whether those two statements combined are sufficient for the "As a result" part of the sentence. I think they are sufficient. Again, do you disagree? If so, please explain why. Thanks.

On the Burden of Evidence issue, I honestly don't recall if I made this change or if someone else did, but, for a long time, the article has had the phrase "also sometimes known as an inversion" in the first sentence (and it still does). "sometimes known" is present tense, so this section is a restatement of that fact, not a new fact introduced recently. I think the only question is whether "as a result" is OK.

And all that said, this isn't that important anyway. I was just surprised that you removed it.

RoyLeban (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I keep regretting creating a new account with my real name. I've been an editor since 2001. I'm not new. WP policies have an intent. We're supposed to follow the intent. The words of the policy are to guide us in the intent and we should not slavishly follow the words when they cause us to diverge from the intent.

There is absolutely no question that Kim's use of the word "inversion" is for the exact same thing. See http://www.scottkim.com/inversions/; see Polster p. 196. See Ambigrammi p. 6. There are plenty of additional references. Feel free to add one, but I think it's superfluous.

I know what WP:V says. I'm saying the verifiable existence of something is sufficient proof to be able to say that the thing exists. We need not find another source that says it. We only need a source if we want to say something more. I don't think it makes any sense to argue otherwise. If I were to add a cite to a random web site that uses the word "inversion" as proof that "some people still use the term", it would be immediately be removed as a non-notable link.

RoyLeban (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, a copy of GEB itself is the proof that it has the ambigrams on the cover. We need not find another source that tells us this. We can look at the book and see the ambigrams. It is the source. I added a ref to point out the cover is already on Wikipedia. On the NEW MAN logo, that's been in the article for ages (not added by me). I have no evidence of whether it's true. I know Loewy did the logo. I think 1969 is right. I don't know if the logo is in use today -- it's possible it was when the statement was added to the article and it's no longer true today. RoyLeban (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

One more thing -- I changed the DMC ref to "first used". That's effectively already on Wikipedia in the DMC article. It might have been designed earlier (though it seems unlikely). Again, I didn't put this in the article in the first place. RoyLeban (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, explain this to me -- if GEB itself is sufficient to make a statement about GEB, why isn't the presence of a current web site which uses the term "inversion" sufficient to say "some people still use the term"? It's the same thing.

I'm heading out of town and this really isn't that important. I think that other than the "as a result", it's sufficiently verified. I'll leave it up to you.

RoyLeban (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's try this as a test. When I get back, I'll add the line back, creating a ref to some typical web sites that use the term. I'll do this in good faith, trying to pick reasonable sites. I'll bet the refs get removed as non-notable, unimportant, etc. And somebody will accuse me of COI because clearly the only reason I'd add links to non-notable sites is because I want to promote them. Maybe I'm wrong, but, in general, there's lower tolerance on Wikipedia for links that are perceived as spam than for uncited sources.

To be clear, I won't make this edit to prove a WP:POINT. I think the line belongs. You think it needs references. Let's put it in with references and see what happens. And if WP had a "blame" feature, things like this would be easier.

BTW, this edit is a pretty clear COI edit that I've been meaning to remove but is now too old to use Undo on. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ambigram&diff=268661755&oldid=268556055 If you feel like it....

RoyLeban (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Clay Enos

Hello: Thanks for your note. I have been sitting on the Clay Enos article for two years, so I think I just wigged out when I saw you had just deleted most of the article. I will work on better references for it. If you see my profile, you will notice I work on and write a wide range of articles, almost none on comics. I picked up on Enos way before the movie work even began. Just watch the article, thanks! -- K72ndst (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Jim Steranko

Hello: I really do not like how you cropped and edited my photo of Jim Steranko, so I am changing it back. I am a photographer, and I made a serious and thought-out decision how I wanted to best present my image. I took more than 20 of Steranko at the con, and could have had a boring photo like you have cropped my photo down to be. The reason I presented it in this way was to show the con around him. I do not want it presented in this fashion. Or I will take the image down. I have contributed many many images to Wikipedia, and never has anyone just gone in and chopped up an image of mine this way. -- K72ndst (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Towelie

Perhaps you might pass an eye over this article. The user from above, notanotheraligfan is insisting on a dead link to be used as an article and popping in some uncited trivia. He/she seems to improve with each block or discussion, but it's hard to get them to discuss this particular article. Alastairward (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In this diff, a dead link and uncited trivia. Alastairward (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Harvey Milk

For some reason, this article is under scrutiny about the lead and the length, as is evident on the talk page. You changed both with the information about Dan White and the altered lead. I reverted both changes. Furthermore, it appears you copied the information about Dan White and pasted it into Milk's article. 1. This is a Featured Article and the writing should be beyond excellent. No part of it should be copied from any source, even another Wikipedia article. 2. None of the information you added was about Harvey Milk. I am quite at a loss as to why it was added at all. 3. Your copy and paste job borked citations in the article.

Please take care while "Wikignoming" that your edits are welcome and necessary. They were neither in this case. Reading the article's talk page will help you avoid this in the future. --Moni3 (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Image purging issue

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

RE: Kirk Cameron

Sometimes I correct problems I don't even know exist. :P I will try to replace it soon with a RS. That is (approx.) the last unreliable source in the article. I hope to get it to GA soon, so that source had to go. Thanks for the FYI. :) TheAE talk/sign 01:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Discussion over Jim Steranko photo

Hi. Could you offer your opinion on the consensus discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I welcome, and appreciate, such notices. I've commented there. - jc37 07:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well--I'm flattered to have my opinion considered. -- Pennyforth (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

commented =) †Bloodpack† 16:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How did you do that?

I noticed you did something I've been trying to figure out how to do easily. You put the same notice on a whole series of talk pages to get people to comment on a discussion. I'd like to do this for the Ambigram page to get previous editors to come back to comment on issues needing consensus (especially since there's one particular editor who thinks his votes are the only ones that count). I've been looking for a bot to do this, but the documentation on the bots that I think might do it aren't exactly clear. And these edits are by you, not a bot. So... what's the trick? Or did you just visit a lot of talk pages manually? Thanks RoyLeban (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in anything you learn about bots to automate putting information on talk pages. The bots I recognized as possible are User:Diligent_Terrier_Bot, User:ShepBot, User:TinucherianBot, User:NotificationBot, but documentation is sketchy.

And, btw, although I disagreed with your opinion re: the crop, I appreciate the consensus building. As a photographer myself, I can sympathize with the guy who carefully framed his photo, feels it captures the guy well and then is annoyed it was fiddled with. OTOH, it's more art than a news image, and that's why the conflict arises. It should be more of a news image, no sepia (even though it works), etc.

With respect to the Ambigram page, feel free to comment anytime. I am going to do a little more cleanup on the page (like add icons for the consensus items that are inline before sending out a notification) and it might not happen until early next week since I am slammed this week and have an all-weekend event coming up. It may look a little daunting because I deliberately broke each issue into a separate section.

RoyLeban (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Kirk Cameron

Sorry about not adding a source. I have re-added the information, but this time with a RS. Good work on your editing to it! TheAE talk/sign 23:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter David

Just wanted to let you know, since you put the semi-protect on the Peter David article....thought maybe you might have it on your watch list. David's homepage/weblog address has changed for whatever reason (presumably related to the scans_daily furor), so I updated the link. -- Pennyforth (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I do make comments on PAD's blog on occasion, but I mostly just read the posts. If you see a "Pennyforth" ID somewhere on the 'net, it's probably me; it's my customary main ID, and I have yet to register somewhere and find it already in use. -- Pennyforth (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey could you help me?

Our south Park friend Alastairward keeps FUCKING UP the articles by putting merge proposals on LOTS of them then OWNS the articles. Could you straighten him out? You did it once when he was messing with the references.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's 3 episodes he has tagged with the proposal.

• An Elephant Makes Love to a pig
• Pinkeye
• Mr. Hankey, The christmas poo

He also wrote on the the talk pages: "Does this article meet notability?"

User: The Video Game Master has been in an argument with Alastairward about "owning the articles."--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nightscream, I had a look at season one of South Park (here). Most of the articles seemed to be relatively unnotable (going by the notability test and a related discussion on the talk pages for the list of Farscape and Lexx episodes (bit of a disclaimer here, I love those two shows but completely support the merges).

I have edited so far the following articles from the list of episodes; Weight Gain 4000, Volcano, An Elephant Makes Love to a Pig and Death. I have also tagged Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo, Pinkeye and Damien (I think that covers them all).

I didn't AfD them as I believe that precludes any effort to restore the articles should notability be evidenced at a later stage. Alastairward (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on dude: First the references, now this?! Are you TRYING to wreck the South Park wikipedia? If you are, I'll give you an A+ and give you my congrats.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Nightscream, my above comment was to Alastairward NOT you! lol--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's continue to conversation on my talk page.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we'd all love to see the step-by-step analysis of the notability test taken by our dear pal, Alastairward, who surely enough remembers WP:BURDEN... NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge deadline

Just out of interest, how long/how many involved editors, would be satisfactory for any merge discussion? Alastairward (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:RorschachHeadShot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:RorschachHeadShot.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

South Park assistance

That's what you get for being helpful in the past, a chance to be helpful all over again. A little query about the episode Fantastic Easter Special. An editor (whom you have dealt with in the past) is trying to squeeze in a little bit of synthesis (here) under the guise of a cite.

Basically, the cite says that in reference to another episode, a certain criticism was levelled at the writers. Fine, that's what the cite says. The editor in question though is trying to use that as some sort of basis for comparison between words used in the cited article and words used in the script of the episode. Take a look at the diff above and see if you agree. Alastairward (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the words "seem to echo" (in the context of the article) meant "maybe yes, maybe no - look at the facts coupled together and use your own logic to draw conclusions." I guess Alastairward selectively forgets certain rules and exceptions to such, or even reinstates original research time after time when it suits his own needs.

Yes, I am attacking Alastairward's editing habits and the fact that he's been disrupting me for a while, finding a new excuse each time. This is not a personal attack, this is personal protection... NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Smallville

Cool find about the additional ratings, and Levin's response to the pilot's popularity.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Alastairward

Personal attacks? Care to explain please? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nightscream warned you on your own talk page about uncivil edit summaries. Please point out where I have attacked you. Alastairward (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nightscream, I still await your response as my query was intended for you. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

...and Alastairward again

Please take a look at this and explain how come he reverted twice after I legitimately removed his blatant original research from the page. Work in progress or not, rules are still rules, aye? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You've linked to my userspace, I've explained on your userspace why I can do so freely. Alastairward (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Alastairward is correct, he can revert the item in his userspace freely. Please do not revert Alastairward reversions again NotAnother.

But there are costs attached to this right to reversion. When Alastairward reverts other editors edits, his userpage loses legitimacy. He can no longer claim later, if he attempts to move the page to mainspace, that the userpage was a universal group effort which everyone contributed too. Ikip (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, I have no idea what you're talking about. What "legitmacy" is this? If I moved it to mainspace, it would be just another edit in my name, one which can be reverted or worked upon again. It's the content, not the creator that counts. Alastairward (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ikip is right, this would fall under WP:OWN. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The patience of a saint barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		The Barnstar of Peace is awarded to users who [are] help[ing] to resolve, peacefully, conflicts on Wikipedia. This barnstar is awarded to Nightscream, who has the patience of a saint and the bravery of a warrior, in inserting himself into contencious long running arguments. Nightscream is an incredibly valuable asset to Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs to be more administrators like him. Ikip (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

MOTU POV

Thank you for your message. I have made a new edit that will perhaps satisfy you better.

I am not interested in engaging in an edit dispute, I merely wish to point out that your use of the NPOV policy as justification for reverting my edit is problematic. Simply put, the statement as it read, in asserting in unambiguous terms that the film does not follow the Filmation cartoon is, in fact, an equally POV statement, if not more so. As the content of the following text in the article indicates, while there is a great deal of apparent inconsistency between the film and the cartoon, there is virtually nothing that can reasonably described as a direct contradiction.

For example, the omission of mentioning He-Man having a secret identity as Prince Adam (particularly in the context of the narrative) does not, ergo, indicate definitively that Prince Adam does not exist in the film's continuity. This is not some wacky theory, but merely an observation of the material as presented. By the same token Teela's vegetarianism, although a curious disparity with depictions of meat-eating in the Filmation cartoon, does not directly contradict any actual depcitions of Teela eating meat herself.

To explicitly say that the movie does not follow the Filmation cartoon is as POV as it would be to say that it does. The properly NPOV way of putting it would be, as I have attempted to contribute, that the film does not appear to overtly conform to, nor directly contradict, the Filmation continuity.

I hope you will please consider my reasoning before reverting my edit again. Thank you.122.105.185.245 (talk) 08:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

References -> Notes?

Hey. I just saw that on Bridget Marquardt, you changed "References" to "Notes." Is this becoming the norm now on articles? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January 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) 19:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Real World Brooklyn

Did you not watch the last episode? It stated very clearly numerous times who each voted for, what party they belonged, too, etc. I'm putting it back in. Thanks. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response. One issue still though - I think Chet and Scott left the election party not because they were offended by their roommate's behavior, but because they were depressed about their candidate losing. There was nothing in their roommate's behavior that was offensive. The pranks played upon them after the party were done because they were Republicans and not because they left the party early. That seems pretty clear, especially if you rewatch the episode. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim Berners-Lee

Hi! Perhaps you'd like to explain this edit? --Pete (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

His birthday is in the biography cited as a reference, and also easily findable on the web, such as here. Hope you get better soon! --Pete (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confused or poorly-informed. His birthday has been in the article since 2002[15]. I merely updated the template. --Pete (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a quick report at WP:ANI here. You might like to add your comments, because if what you say is true, most of our articles are quite unsourced and should be quickly purged. --Pete (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Just letting you know I've raised another incident report here.

Perhaps I can short-circuit what could turn out to be a messy business? I gain a good deal of innocent pleasure by tidying up Wikipedia. I know I'll never get on top of all the vandalism and errors, but it gives me a good feeling to know that I'm doing a little bit for the common good. You mentioned "wikignome" behaviour elsewhere, and I suspect that we both enjoy setting things to rights, following the rules etc., and the sight of someone else apparently acting against us is upsetting.

In this case, you may be following a strict interpretation of wikilaw, but the practical effect is that we're losing good information from our articles. There may not be a source displaid beside every little bit of information, but we've got most of it covered. We don't need to refer to a biography for every little thing when we use the same source multiple times, surely?

I'm not out to get you, and in fact I feel a great deal of empathy with what you are doing. Can you just pull back a little, and direct your efforts to removing clear and obvious vandalism, or information for which we have no good source? Or, better yet, if you find something you feel is insufficiently referenced, instead of just deleting it, could you please cite the reference in a way that satisfies you? Pretty please? --Pete (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to substantially agree with Pete's comment here. No, you're not required to try to find a citation per WP:V; but by removing material that could easily be sourced your actions end up making articles worse, not better. Could you consider at least giving a brief attempt to fix the issue before removing the material? If you can't find a citation verifying the material within say five minutes, go ahead and delete it.

I hope you can consider modifying your approach a bit. You now have comments from three respected users in good standing.. and, well, me too, suggesting that there might be an issue with your approach. Cheers, henrik•talk 06:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

List of suicides

Hi there. With regard to this edit [16]: as you know from the section labeled "References" that you renamed, this article is not unreferenced. In fact, most of the items are referenced in the article linked in each item. That's a perfectly acceptable method for referencing lists, since it avoids duplicating references and also avoids having a "References" section with hundreds of items in it. The small "References" section in the article is for the few cases where that isn't sufficient - but it does exist, so your edit was entirely wrong. As such, i have reverted it. Please don't readd the {subst:tl|unreferenced}} tag. In stead, if something is not sufficiently referenced, you should just remove it - that's what I do, which is how I know the list is well-referenced.

For the record, let me just state prophylactically that such an article absolutely must have reliable sourcing. I mean it - I take that as a fundamental principle for a list like this. For reference, here's the first set of edits I ever made to the article: [17]. When I say you should remove material that isn't referenced well enough, I absolutely mean it. However, your method of tagging the article, while changing the references section to support your tagging, was not helpful. Please don't repeat it. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If I may respond: It may be that you prefer to call reference sections "Notes", but I mostly see them called "References". If you prefer "Notes", you're free to argue for your preference, but you shouldn't unilaterally change it just to change it. Certainly, you shouldn't remove the "References" heading in the same edit that you assert the article has no references. I assumed as much good faith about that as I could, given that the template in question is explicitly named {{unreferenced}} and there explicitly were references. I am, for the record, not upset - but I feel your edit was unconstructive.

Let me repeat: In a list of that nature, it is explicitly allowed to source it by adding a source in the linked article. If you prefer references in the list, you're free to argue for your preference, but you shouldn't unilaterally claim there are no references.

You will find that I absolutely agree with you that an assertion such as "Person X committed suicide" or "Person X may have committed suicide" must have impeccable sourcing. I have removed material from the list repeatedly when that sourcing was not present. However, to repeat, I feel your edit was unconstructive. Please discuss such edits rather than making them unilaterally. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not "prefer" to call Reference section Notes, it is Wikipedia policy that does. I made this point to you on your own Talk Page, and even linked to you the relevant policy pages that show this. (Here and here are the two links. Here is yet another sample layout from the same policy page.) You did not respond to this point. What any given editor "mostly sees" is subjective, as what they're seeing may be incorrect. What policy pages indicate is not.

The name of the template is irrelevant. You do not assume nefarious motives on the part of editors unless excluded all other possibile ones. I placed a tag in the article because it is not sufficiently referenced, and changed the name of a section because that is what Wikipedia policy indicates. Two separate issues that were not connected in any way. Prior to my discovering that layout policy relatively recently, I too, called notes sections "References". Your insistence that I changed the name of that section, when I've been making the exact same change to countless articles lately (which you could see if you checked my Edit History, or for that matter, my own Talk Page, such as the section four sections above the one you started) was not "as much good faith about that as you could assume". It was as much good faith as you felt like assuming, which was none. The name of the template doesn't change this. The template name provides a rationale for your position about the proper name, but it does not provide a valid rationale for making an assertion about someone else's intent.

You say it is explicitly allowed to source such a list via sources that are not in that article, but in other ones linked to it. Can you point me to the policy page that states this? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Biography sections

Mainly going by the idea that sections allow you to group content that is alike. In this case if you have a number on different elements of a person's life history (early life, career, personal history, etc.) then it makes sense to group them together to separate this from other sections like the parodies/homages, bibliography, links and references. It also makes sense with an eye on semantic markup where structure provide meaning (which also has implications for accessibility). I think the key is I can see advantages for doing it but I can't see what is gained by not doing it. (Emperor (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

Well I could ask if there is a guideline that says we shouldn't, as there are good reasons for it and your sense of aesthetics not to. However, the simplest thing is to get a consensus on this - I've added my thoughts here, feel free to contribute there. (Emperor (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

Re: Robert Pattinson

Part of my point about it not being contentious was that it seems silly to just remove the information, rather than to simply find a source for it, when I'm fairly that certain even you don't believe that the birthdate provided was false (and that anyone could find such a source very easily). Also, if you look at these featured articles on living people (and more!), you will see that birthdates quite often remain unsourced without issue. Again, I imagine exceptions would be made in cases of controversy, which does not apply here. However, as I am always pleased to see users who care about verifiability, I will play your game and re-add it along with a source once I get the chance. Cheers. Andrea (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply from Ian13

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I have replied to your message and would be grateful if you'd continue the discussion on my talk page. Ian¹³/t 20:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC) (Ps. you might also want to consider archiving some topics from this page.)

Talk:Skeptical Inquirer

Hola,

Just a note to say I've reverted to the last version of Talk:SI that contained the whole post by the anon (as well as left a note saying "please don't chat", a template at the top of the page and a {{uw-chat1}} on the anon's talk page. I don't really like deleting talk page comments and the overall interaction may be instructive for further editors coming to the page. Even if the original post is a bit soapy, I think there's still merit to keeping it on the page. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Cesar's very first comment is a challenge to the factual accuracy of the page "Please tell me which Skeptical Inquirer issue has dealt with Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) since I don't remember anyone" with a reply of "May/June 2006 issue, see the photo of the cover in the main article". I don't think it's worth getting into an edit war over, so if you really feel strongly about it I won't re-revert, but the risk of it happening again is low, it does contribute something to the page and discussion, and it's over a year old. I've removed soapboxing comments before, such as when a religious fundie shows up on talk:evolution, but it's part of the learning process of new editors to curb their POV and this one isn't horrible. At the very least the entire section is related to the magazine itself (bar the anon's newest complaint).

Anyway, if you still feel strongly about it, I can't stop you from removing it but I do think it's unnecessary. And I am probably a bit biased 'cause I've worked with Cesar before on several pages (part of the reason I don't think he's a complete POV-pushing waste of time, he does do good work). Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing and reconsidering, much appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk pages

Hi Nightscream; yes, anyone may remove off-topic discussions. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments, which states that "[d]eleting material not relevant to improving the article" is acceptable. — TKD::{talk} 02:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Though FWIW in my opinion anyone can remove totally off-topic comments, not just admins. I've certainly done so repeatedly, but only when it's completely egrigious. Admins just get to block if the add-ee is persistent WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Peter David's Potato Moon

Hi, I noticed you contribute a great deal to Peter David's article. I'm writing to ask if you'd consider adding two links to his latest project, Potato Moon. It is a satire to ridicule a fanfic novel called Russet Noon. Here's the link:

http://www.peterdavid.net/index.php/2009/04/20/potato-moon-rising/

And a press release on Google News: http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&q=russet+noon

He also has a new article that fanhistory.com just added, but I noticed you guys have that URL blacklisted, so I won't even send you the link. I didn't want to edit it myself, so I found out who edits the article the most often and came to your talk page. Please consider adding them because Peter David's popularity has skyrocketed thanks to this project and he's back on Google now. According to the Fan History article,

"RaceFail: Peter David was one of the professional authors who came under fire and criticism during Race Fail 2009, most specifically for a blog he posted on February 24, "Soooo...electing Barack Obama was an act of cowardice?" His name was added to the 'Author Shit List' proposed on March 8 by bridgetmkennitt."

And here's one more: http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/34502858.html

Anyways, Google has forgiven him thanks to his new project, Potato Moon. This is his career comeback. I just thought it might be important to mention. He's at the top of Google. Thanks. Ladysybilla (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream, I provided those links as a point of reference to help you see both sides of the story. I understand that you will ultimately decide which sources to quote if you write the article. Let me know if you have any questions. [User:Ladysybilla|Ladysybilla]] (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the Potato Moon article is up for deletion, because it's an internet joke, so I was wondering if it would be okay to add an external link to Potato Moon to Peter David's external links section. Thanks. Ladysybilla (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. The information about the Authors Shit List was on the FanHistory article created for him as a result of his involvement with Russet Noon. I don't know where FH got that info from. I just didn't want to give you the link because of the blacklist situation. In regards to the copyright issue, however, I have repeatedly announced that it will be given away for free to people who actually want to read it. There will be no sales of the book whatsoever, so the sites that are still going on and on about the infringement are making false accusations. I just wanted to clarify that. Thanks for your help. Ladysybilla (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Galactus Article problems

Hi, I'd very much appreciate if you could help to mediate in the seemingly neverending Galactus problem? Dave (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting really really exasperated with User:TheBalance's consistent reverts to extremely slanted, pov, inaccurate, or arguable information. I'd really appreciate some help of editing the page to a completely neutral version (not necessaruily mine, just sticking to an explicit non-arguable version), and putting a permanent stop to this. It's extremely tiresome, and he's stated that he's going to continue forever. Dave (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In article warnings

What would you opinion be then on messages to other editors (diff) that are left within code in the article itself in screaming capitals? To me it just seems a bit much for one individual to declare an item of information to be left in an article in that manner. Alastairward (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday May 17th, Columbia University area Last: 03/29/2009

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, 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) 22:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

George Lazenby

Please consider removing the semi-protection of George Lazenby. We're talking about sporadic and quite reasonable reinsertions of birth information. It's hardly a case of either illicit disruption or heavy vandalism. Keeping the article locked down for seven weeks over this small a dispute is excessive. I also don't think it's prudent for an admin apply indefinte semi-protection to a dispute where he/she is a party. Peter ^Isotalo 22:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply moved from user talk:Peter Isotalo[18]

This is not a content dispute, it's a policy issue. All information added to articles must be supported by reliable sources cited in the text. That's not an opinion, it's a fundamental Wikipedia policy. I'd be more than happy to lift the protection when I can be assured that those who insist on reinserting that information stop doing so. Whether this is "vandalism" or "illicit disruption" is irrelevant. Wikipedia has policies that must be followed, and protecting articles after repeated violations of such policies is a valid recourse. Nightscream (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing in the policies that calls for mandatory indefinite semi-protection for an issue as minor as this one. The intent is, as you say, not illicit, the information is not the least sensitive, and the intensity of editing is very low. I've requested article protection a few times, and from experience it's not done for situations like this. I've made a post about this at the article talkpage, and I invite you to respond to that. Since there have already been at least three seemingly legit registered users that have reinserted the information, this is clearly something that needs to be discussed. ::Peter ^Isotalo 06:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply moved from user talk:Peter Isotalo[19]

I did not say that the edit in question was "not illicit", and I'd appreciate it if you did not attribute words to me that I did not express. Whether the edit is "illicit" is irrelevant, as is whether it's "major" or "minor" (since those things are to some degree, subjective), and whether a multitude of other editors re-added it, especially when you consider that some of those editors may be anonymous IP editors or newbies who may be unfamiliar with WP's policies. If you insist on that information being in the article, why not do the right thing and follow Wikipedia policy by finding a reliable source for it? Do you dispute that WP:V requires this? Even if you do, the question remains: How do you know that that info is correct? Where did you come by it? Nightscream (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'd prefer to keep this discussion where it started.

I haven't put any words in your mouth. I'm trying to stress the fact that the situation is not serious enough to a) require such a rigid interpretation of policies nor b) indefinite permanent semi-protection. It's a birth date and a place of birth. It's not slander, and it's not sensitive by any reasonable sense of the word. Defending your actions by merely going "well that's all just subjective" is making it really easy for yourself. Claiming that everyone who has disagreed with you so far are ignorant newbies doesn't fly either. After reading your appeal to Jimbo I know that you've been disputing with several experienced editors on this matter, and I'm not the only one who feels you're kinda barking up the wrong tree.

I've already tried to start a thread for discussing the issue of Lazenby's birth info and what sources are applicable, so why not reply there so we can at least resolve that issue?

As for the semi-protection of the Lazenby article I'm asking you again to unprotect it per the fact that this is a very minor issue that doesn't merit several weeks of semi-protection. I'm guessing the same goes for Jamie Chung. It's not really fair that you try to trump IP users on this issue when you don't even have proper support from established users. ::::Peter ^Isotalo 05:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Nightscream, you wrote "All information added to articles must be supported by reliable sources cited in the text". That is quite an unusual interpretation of policy. WP:V says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Material challenged or likely to be challenged is very different from "all information". To my knowledge, it has never been the policy anywhere that non-controversial information must be directly attributed to a source. henrik•talk 08:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Just say the Jimbo talk page discussion - perhaps a wider community discussion in the form of an rfc would be preferable? henrik•talk 08:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The birth info for George Lazenby has been re-added and sourced, but it's still semi-protected. Nightscream, since that info appears to be what motivated you to protect it in the first place, do you think you could consider unprotecting it? ::Peter ^Isotalo 22:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability

Just saw the fuss you're making on Jimbo's discussion page. Regarding this, 10 seconds of research are enough to verify the information you deleted. Greetings, Stefan64 (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Nightscream, please consider the discussion on Jimbo's page. What you are doing is in essence removing research leads, please move items to talk page or tag appropriately unless they are gross BLP violations. Unomi (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Heads up on AfD

Thought you might be interested in an AfD that's ongoing regarding Brian Quintana, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Quintana. You'll remember Mr. Quintana - see Talk:Pedro Zamora/Archive 1#More deletions without reason if you need a reminder. Tabercil (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Galactus Edit War

How should we handle it? Rtkat3 (talk) 7:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Please watch posting mass edits like this, it could fall under canvassing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the quantity and content of the messages, and the chosen recipients. (As per the page you note.) - jc37 02:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm trying to mediate an edit war over the Galactus article here. Can you chime in with your two cents? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure.

I reset the protection to 3 days, and will be leaving a notice on the talk page shortly. - jc37 01:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a time honored edit war with an ever-growing list of participants who all feel that they are equally right and the others are all wrong. :) I'll see what I can do. BOZ (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hope I didn't come on too strong. :) BOZ (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, it looks like User:Spellplague was a User:Grawp sock - you might not have been aware of that when you notified everyone who had recently edited the article! BOZ (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about Galactus to really weigh in on this edit war. Good luck resolving it, though! WmGB (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong person to ask - sorry Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: this, I offered a suggestion, although the sniping continues. I tend to fall more on the side of TheBalance, as Dave is taking it all far too personally and keeps making accusations re: sockpuppets (he even accused me of Galactus-pumping when editing the Cosmic hierarchy table). He means well, but seems to still be at the "fan" stage with manyy of his edits and fixates on power match-ups and other speculative material that is more suited to OHOTMU than Wikipedia. I am currently having to hose down both he and another eager but inexperienced editor at Dormammu. Asgardian (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nightscream, RE: your message on my page, I have a HUGE professional commitment in one week's time, and is the reason I haven't been on Wikipedia as of late. I only logged in to look up some information pertinent to that commitment and saw your message. I'll be free to comment next week. But as it stands I am generally more in agreement with The Balance and Asgardian. Asgardian and I have had particularly large disagreements in the past but using logic and reason we have moved forward and are attempting to enhance the article, which is proof on my and his part that successful cooperation is possible. I find that difficult with David A, to say the least. That being said, I don't want it to sound like any particular "bias" on my part; when I make edits I will be armed (as I have been) with concrete evidence. In any event I will post a small comment in the talk page, and I'll revisit the article again after my obligation is finished, so I look forward to whatever progress (hopefully) occurs in the interim. In a week or so, I'll able to give my input.Mobb One (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

On another note, Dave may bear watching. Again, he's enthusiastic etc but he has something of a fetish for the Marvel cosmics and likes to play match-ups and determine exactly who is more powerful than whom. Unfortunately, it is all very nebulous and often left to the interpretation of the writer. In most cases it is impossible to accurately guage such things as it often comes across as POV. Celestials & One Above All are examples of articles where some reversions have been necessary. Regards Asgardian (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:ThinAir.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:ThinAir.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

File:02MA-Claudia1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:02MA-Claudia1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Postdlf (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Up (2009 film)

Alpha may indeed by a doberman pinscher, but without a reliable source that says so, to characterize him as such is OR. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

One does if one has no source for it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

One does need a source. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It was my understanding that any contentious edit required a source. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And, BTW, somebody was trying to claim that Dug is a golden retriever. I certainly didn't see that as being obvious. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Glvsal1.jpg

I have tagged File:Glvsal1.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. Otherwise, it will be deleted in seven days. Rockfang (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Galactus

Gack! I got your message very late, and on looking at the article/argument I still have no idea what was going on, and am unsure as to why you requested my opinion. Well, either way, sorry I wasn't able to help. Chicopac (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for adding that info to Trapped in the Closet (South Park). Cirt (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Again

It seems DavidA is becoming a tad too obsessed about the cosmic articles, and Template:Marvel Cosmic and One Above All may need protection, although preferably on the correct versions. Try as I and others might, he insists on using OHOTMU information which is invalid and trying to play "power match-ups between the characters, which in most cases is futile as they are fictional and it should not be the focus of the articles anyway. Hope you can help. Regards Asgardian (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah. One-Above-All, not One Above All.

And once again. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mobb_One

Is he actually admitting he has medical issues here? His comments in his Edit Summaries certainly smack of obsession. There seems to a pattern of appearing for a few days, causing trouble, and then disappearing until the next time. The fixation with OHOTMU also continues. Not really my idea of fun to blow a whole Wikipedia session just managing his outbursts. Thoughts? Asgardian (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have always admitted that I have medical issues, and you are perfectly aware of this. That you choose to use it as a foothold for personal scheming further shows just what kind of person you have consistently shown yourself to be. Dave (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm very calm. I'm asking is there an issue, which he apparently has answered for us (above). How this is handled is another question. I contacted you as you had involvement in trying to sort out the Edit War at Galactus. I would have thought his comments in the link would send up a red flag. Check out the comments in his Edit Summary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/David_A

You are trying to use something that I have answered to multiple times in the past as some kind of personal foothold that is irrelevant to the context of you systematically deleting facts and replacing them with your own personal completely unfounded ideas, and then you state that me actually solely basing what I write on the sum total of all available explicit information as "warped" as opposed to your own unfounded opinions. If you're a Marvel writer, then fine, ignore everything that's ever been published and write whatever you want, and then that reference can be added here, but if not, then you can't just censor out the explicit comics+handbooks when in complete overlap information in favour of your own preferred view of things. It's completely intellectually dishonest. Dave (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

He is definately uncivil (accusing someone of lying, and what we have above). To me, that is less of a concern than the obsession with using the OHOTMU and establishing some kind of warped version of order over the Marvel Cosmics. But, seeing as you've contacted someone else, I can put the case to them with more links. Asgardian (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Was it you on Commons

I got a msg on my Commons talk page from this same name so I'm assuming it's you and that you asked me to reply here but your "here" link was to your Commons talk page. FYI, if you ever want to link to Wikipedia from Commons, use w: or en: before your link, such as [[w:User talk:Nightscream]] or [[en:User talk:Nightscream]] :)

As to your question on Commons, yes you can upload video but it has to be properly licensed of course.. and in Ogg format with one of the following extensions: .ogg, .ogv or .oga So you will need to convert .wmv files to Ogg format. There are several for-a-fee and several free converters on the market. Trying to figure them out is another matter. I tried and never could get it right so now, I only upload video I've found that is free to use/public domain and already in the Ogg format. Hope this helps. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 16:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Following up, see commons:Commons:Project scope/Allowable file types as well. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

APK (If You Wanna) 01:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Towelie

I know sourcing is important but generally this is unnecessary in cases where the information is as readily available as the definition of a word. I was unaware that this had been removed before; however, if it was, it probably shouldn't have been. The meaning of the the word okama is well established and shouldn't be under any debate. See LGBT_in_Japan#Japanese_gay_slang. D4g0thur 08:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I see that it is unsourced there also; so see [20] or [21] or search in WWWJDIC, or pretty much any Japanese↔English dictionary. D4g0thur 08:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for not adding relevant citation even though I didn't think the matter contentious; clearly it was or we wouldn't be having this discussion. As far as not knowing if the creators knew of the word's meaning, it is fairly safe to say that Trey Parker, at least, was aware of it. He studied Japanese and even lived in Japan for a period (as mentioned here (Japanese) and a bunch of other places if you do a quick google search for "Trey Parker Japan" or something). His fluency in Japanese is also demonstrated in various other South Park episodes such as Good Times with Weapons and Mecha-Streisand (and probably others I'm not remembering).
Of course, I know that you won't be happy with that, so I've gone and found some reliable sources and fixed it up, stating its relevance. I guess I should thank you for making me not be lazy ~_^ D4g0thur 16:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As you say, you don't have knowledge of Japanese; anyone who has the level of Japanese proficiency that Trey Parker has would definitely know the word okama which is probably the most popular term for homosexual men in Japan. (Especially considering that he lived there.) However, fair is fair and it does not explicitly state that this was an intentional joke so I will reword it to allow for the (extremely remote) possibility that it wasn't. D4g0thur 16:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Misinterpreting policy to suit your needs doesn't make you any more right in this. As it stands, the article simply states the meaning of the word okama - a well established fact - and that this being an intentional joke is a possibility based on Trey Parker's knowledge of the Japanese language - another well established fact. Your removal of perfectly legitimate information is not helpful to the project. D4g0thur 17:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

While I'm sure it does wonders for your self esteem, citing the greatness of your edit-count is irrelevant in this discussion and you well know it. Speaking in circumlocution about how policy supports you, while ignoring all of my arguments for the inclusion of the fact is unproductive. I'm going to put this out as simply as I possibly can in hope that you'll see what I'm trying to say.

1. Okama means "homosexual or cross-dressing man" in Japanese.
2. Trey Parker is fluent in Japanese, has an active interest in Japanese culture and has lived in Japan.

As a result of (2) it is a distinct possibility that Trey Parker was aware of (1) and, thus, (1) is relevant to this article.

Now, it seems that your only issue with the addition as it stands is that you believe it to be speculation on my part. So, I will edit the addition to include both facts (1) and (2) with absolutely no unsourced material allowing the reader to come to a conclusion themselves. This satisfies your current argument against inclusion. D4g0thur 17:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I give up. Clearly you are just going to (ab)use your admin powers to push your opinion in the matter and there's no way I can win. You've reminded me of why I'm always pushed away from editing Wikipedia; there's too many users like yourself. D4g0thur 05:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Your interpretation of Wikipedia policy is rather different to mine; I accept that and I accept that your position of power here means that yours will overpower mine. While I may not be an administrator or spend every waking hour editing here, if you took any time whatsoever to look at my history, you'd see that I'm far from an inexperienced editor as you insist on patronisingly suggesting. Please accept that I have dropped this issue and this is the last you will hear of it from me. D4g0thur 06:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you actually incapable of dropping anything? I thought that I'd made it abundantly clear that I have no interest in dealing with you at any time in the future; this is because I am not a masochist. If you really must play the "last word" game then feel free to make one final comment on my talk-page. I won't read it, but if it makes you feel good, go ahead. Otherwise, just leave me alone; I have no interest in having any dealings whatsoever with you.

I apologise if the above seems blunt but I'm not going to sugar-coat it. Regardless of our differences, I hope that you enjoy the rest of your life. Goodbye. D4g0thur 16:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference New York Update: 3 weeks to go

For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.

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) 03:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Real World Residence Photos

Los Angeles and Hollywood

I don't know if I will go by there or if I will have my cameras with me. Most likely I will not go to Venice Beach. I will be at Sunset Blvd. next week, but not at Columbia Square. Go ahead list the addresses and see what we can do. (BTW I worked at Sunset-Gower Studios and other studios as well) Last weekend, it was filming the Anime Expo, next door to Staples Center, where I filmed a sign which has a panel that paid tribute to Michael Jackson. Since you are into comics, do you know about Boom! Studios, Mike Kazaleh, artist for Simpsons? I have photos of them. Ucla90024 (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't like the photo in the Columbia Square article? I think Stage 20 is located on one the other streets of the "Columbia Square" block. Not sure it is correct that the main building is 7 stories. Ucla90024 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

7-story not correct and so is "previously housed eight studios and two radio stations, KCBS-TV and KCAL-TV." Do they mean two radio stations and two TV stations? One of the radio station is KNX. Not sure if the FM station was also located at Columbia Square before they moved to Wilshire facilities. Ucla90024 (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a cloth optional beach. Ucla90024 (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

London

Where in London is the residence? I don't mind taking a picture of it, but it depends where it is. Laurent (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'll take the picture next time I'm in the area (probably within a week or two). If someone else take the picture in the meantime, please let me know. Laurent (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Nightscream. You have new messages at Laurent1979's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Laurent (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii

Maybe you already looked there, but the Hawaii Project Participants page shows where a lot of us call home; some live in your target area of Honolulu. Sounds to me like you have this handled, otherwise, there must be some geo clues from arranging a meetup which might serve your goal of geolocating folks for this task. Newportm (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Chicago

I should be able to get a photo in a few weeks. I will be moving back into Chicago in August, within walking distance of Wicker Park. If no one else gets back to you by August, just let me know the address. Jpers36 (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

San Diego

Depending on the location, I can most likely take the picture for you. Send me the address and I'll try to get the image in the coming days/weeks. If you need any other San Diego images let me know as I may have already uploaded them or can take more images. Also if you find non-free images on websites such as Flickr, I may be able to help you get permission for the images, as I have experience in getting image permissions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I will be unable to get you images of the LA/Hollywood houses, but if you can find them on Flickr, and give me the url, I can send a request to the author and hopefully get it released under a free license. I may try to get the San Diego image this weekend, we'll see how my schedule goes. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I took an image yesterday, which can be seen here. I added it to the San Diego season page, feel free to re-arrange it if necessary. If you need help with anything else, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk• contrib) 01:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Austin

Yes, I work in Austin and I will be happy to get a couple of images of the residence if you can tell me the location. I moved your request to my talk page. Please add the location there. I should be able to have you something by this weekend. -Regards, Nv8200p talk 14:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Got the address off the The Real World: Austin page - 301 San Jacinto Boulevard at East 3rd Street. Hopefully this is correct. -Nv8200p talk 14:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are photographs of the Austin residence - File:Real world austin house 2009 1.jpg, File:Real world austin house 2009 2.jpg, File:Real world austin house 2009 3.jpg . Let me know if these will work for you. - Regards Nv8200p talk 00:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Denver

Actually, I currently live in Denver. So if you want a picture of that residence I can probably provide that for you, but not the one in Austin. Vertigo700 (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sydney

Darling Harbour is a little out of my way to go on a specific trip for photos, but I'll find myself in the area once every one or two months. If you give me the location, I'll try to take some shots the next time I'm there. -- saberwyn 23:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad news. It looks like the house was part of the main Darling Walk complex. The building was demolished late last year (see the article on Sega World Sydney, the main tenant of the complex for more details). -- saberwyn 09:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Roger Ebert

well uhh yea... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorcerer123 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have again Sorcerer123 (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Real World Cancun

Shame to hear that Nicole401 plagiarized the third episode's summary. In case you were wondering, Emilee confirmed that they didn't have sex on vevmo.com -yosh^UT 03:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach

I do not think the section is "fine"; I believe the section goes on for too long about the plot and that it could be cut down in length. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, boldness called here. The early sections were too detail-heavy, so i cut those out. The other parts were fine. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

imdb

hi please dirtect me to exactly where in wp it lists imdb as being an unreliable source. otherwise i shall take that as personal opinion on your part. imdb is a highly reliable source, used by industry professionals. until you provide the relevant wp, i am restoring the information. if you have concerns about accuracy please try www.google.com to verfiy, before you simply erase things. thanks Lx 121 (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

ok; i've read thru the material you provided, & what i'm getting from it is that there is no concensus onimbd's reliability. i personally find it amsuing to hear members of one wikiproject criticising another wikiproject for producing material in pretty much the same way; i can only assume this is perofessional jealousy. that's beside the point tho...

the reliability of imdb is not a settled issue on wikip, you regard it as completely unreliable, i disagree. i happen to work in the film industry ina very small way, & the people i work with all use imdb as a regular resource.

in this case, since the only points of data being used are dob & place of birth, i think we can reasonably assume that imdb got it right, unless you can proove the inaccuracy?

if you disagree, we can just proceed thru dispute resolution, as i'm not in the mood to edit war further, & you are in danger of violating the 3 revert rule. i note that you have already repeatedly removed pretty much the same material from the article, overriding multiple other users, on an ongoing basis.

have you ever tried to find the info from another source? Lx 121 (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

nice try; the link you posted deals with criteria for notability, not reliability of sources. to repeat what i said before; there is no consensus on the use of imdb as a resource. you have one opinion, i have another. i think it is wrong of you to attempt to manufacture consensus by imposing your views & if you want to fight it out, i'm cool with that; the next time you edit conflict me, i'll start with a third opinion & we can work our way up from there. i'll also go thru the complaints procedure in regard to your actions. your repeated reverts violate the intent of the 3 revert rule, if not the letter; you have overwritten the work of multiple users whose opinions about the reliability of imdb differed from your own. you've also violated at least one or two points of wikip etiquette, but i'm not going to bother including wp links for that, i'm sure you can find them yourself. your opinions about reference procedures i will also take as personal opinion. my opinion is that it is more helpful to the project to attempt to fix & verify things, rather than simply erase them repeatedly. Lx 121 (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding disputes and reverts

Hi. In general, I think the rule of thumb should be that once actual discussion begins over a content dispute, reverting and edit warring should stop until there is either some general consensus or concession regarding a point. Continuing to revert even while discussing tends to send the message that the discussion isn't being given its due consideration. Of course, rather than revert back and forth, one could always tag the content as a factual dispute ({{dispute}}), neutrality dispute, request third opinions or further dispute resolution. I can't say any of this necessarily works for me either, but it's realistically what should happen. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I removed the date linking because that is the trend that will be established whenever the arbcom case is decided and there's little meaning in linking the dates the way they were. I removed the two fansites listed as "references" based on WP:ELNO, the IMDB biography link because they are absolutely not considered valid sources and I removed the regular IMDB page because it is already listed under external links and we don't much use references for filmographies. I changed the filmography table to the standard style recommended by WP:ACTOR. I didn't remove the birthdate, although I put in the birth date and age template, mostly because we have a huge number of biographies with birthdates that are unsourced and I couldn't see that there was a clear dispute about that right now. That fairly much covers my rationale for the changes I made. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

My rationale for removing what I did was based on clear policy, such as the WP:ELNO and I felt no need to refrain because I am not in a content dispute with anyone on that page and believe I was acting in good faith. I'm not sure what pages you referenced to the other editor regarding IMDB, but as far as I am aware, there is clear consensus, repeatedly in many places, regarding IMDB content that is user submitted, such as biographies and trivia. The point that most would say has not reached consensus is the rest of the content - screen credits, awards and box office data, and this is all why there is so much disagreement over IMDB. Having said that, I'm not certain that the discussion you had on Talk:Jimbo Wales came to a conclusion about anything, and I'm not sure that I see that Jimbo agreed with removing non-controversial material. He certainly was fairly clear in highlighting that he supports your approach on negative material, but was also fairly clear about the need for a balance. I have to agree with him on that. My view is that a birthdate would be something that one would tag for a source and allow time for that to be sourced, unless there is a reason to think that it is deliberately false. The points others made about verifiability vs. verified seem to apply here and I think that's a valid point. Does that answer your question? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

File:04MA-Angela.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:04MA-Angela.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ZooFari 02:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

MAD editions

Actually, I've been editing on Wikipedia for several years on a rotating IP address; I'd estimate that conservatively 50% of the text in the Mad article came from me. That particular paragraph wasn't my contribution, but it was batted around a bit before remaining in the article for a number of years. The link used to connect to the full article, but still has a lesser use since it has the name of the article across the top banner. I've toned down the "obscenity" angle and added two previous international publishing conflicts. I hope the new wording is more to your liking. But feel free to let me know otherwise!208.120.7.152 (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes

Hello, Nightscream. The reason the reference to the same source was placed consecutively like that before you removed them is due to editors or IPs often overlooking stuff that is clearly cited. Sometimes when they see statements such as "They cite that ratings and viewer response are consistently higher for stories involving the couple, and that if the public wants more coverage of the couple, the media responds" without seeing a reference attributed to that exact statement, they feel that it is uncited. Similar stuff like that has happened to that article, and plenty of other articles on Wikipedia, before. Some people simply do not pay enough attention, do not click on the source, or do not click on the source to read most or all of it. I will place the reference back in two spots you removed it from but not the other two spots. Believe me, though, I feel the same way you do about referencing things like that. Flyer22 (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page (as the talk page says I will, LOL). And thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Moses

Regarding this edit, I'm not sure about the version in particular, but most versions of the Jewish Encyclopedia are public domain, so the appropriate response is simply to add somewhere a small note that the article uses PD material from the JE (which I seem to recall this article actually being labeled as such at some point in the past but I can't track down a dif). JoshuaZ (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

I'^mperator 15:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Howard Bloom

I am sorry, I don't understand your language --El estremeñu (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Basil Gogos

Did you look for a ref before removing Basil Gogos's award? I found it within a minute. - JeffJonez (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My favorite part of wp:burden is this part "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the template...". Having read wp:burden, you already knew that. - JeffJonez (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to drop Jimmy's name, then at least finish his sentence. His quote refers to contentious material. Basil's award doesn't strike me as such. It is easier to destroy that create... don't take the easy path! - JeffJonez (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2

The MUA2 article follows Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. Cast sections are not used in video games, as they denote the actors rather than the characters. If in doubt, take a look at and GA video game articles. --Teancum (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

:That guideline does not say that cast sections are not used in video games because they denote the actors rather than the characters. It says that actors names should not be listed unless they are noteworthy, as with actors from films reprising their roles. It says nothing of whether to use the word "Cast", and indeed, very passage uses the word "Cast" repeatedly, not once indicating that its use is frowned upon:

Cast Lists: Generally speaking, a list of the actors providing voices for video game characters is not appropriate. Exceptions to the rule would be games where the voice cast is particularly notable, such as actors reprising their roles in a video game translation of a movie, as in the case of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. In this case the character cast follows the general standard for listing a movie cast, with minor adaptations for the game's article. However, if characters are listed in a table, cast should not be listed separately. If actors/actresses must be added to the article, typically they should be done in the article prose, and generally in the development section. Nightscream (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(Copied from my talk page for clarity)

While that's true, I also mentioned looking at Good Articles or Featured Articles for video games as standards as well. You'll note that 'cast' is not used in those articles. --Teancum (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing obvious, but needed, information

Hello, you removed some information from the page Leaning Tower of Pisa. In particular you removed the part concerning the name of the tower. I know it is a obvious information, but so many people call the tower simply Pisa and that, of course, it is not correct. So I put it clear in the wikipedia article. Also you removed the part about generic belltowers name. It is obvious too, every belltower has the name of the related church. But, again, so many people think that the belltower of the cathedral of Pisa IS called "Pisa Tower" or simply "Pisa" that I think it's better to explain well in the article. I will put again the removed part because it is useful, also I'll put some reference for the few that think that "Pisa" it is the name of the tower. --Lonewolf1976 (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Page blanking

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to List of atheists (surnames E to G). Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. --Allen3 ^talk 11:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

RE : Pedro Zamora

I'll write back to him via OTRS and see if he is able to substantiate that claim anyway. On a personal note linking another person to a charity that bears Zamora's surname in the latter's biography article is...a bit far-fetched, especially if the former already has a separate biography article out there; If the article is just about the charity itself, that I might have understood.

If you are planning to add it back, try to find another reliable source that hasn't been disputed or retracted. Multiple sources definitely hold more weight than just a single one. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for revising and summarizing the prose - it looks a lot better now and addresses the concerns. - Mailer Diablo 04:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

List of suicides

Hello, you deleted my mention of John Verrept and said it wasn't sourced. I did mention Ralph Cooper's site which is the only source at present that showcases Verrept's story. Since Verrept was Belgian much of any material on him is going to be in French. There was one New York Times article from the period stating his death as a suicide, perhaps thats a more legitimate source. I've been warned about using New York Times articles verbatim. Please keep in mind that this is important but forgotten or obscure history and in this case kind of morbid. Sort of like List of people who have disappeared. I would think the wiki community would be greatful. Thanks for your patience. Koplimek (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Roger Ebert reversion

Ebert does not defend giving The Godfather II a higher rating than The Godfather III. The next sentence expands on how he, in retrospect, he has listed The Godfather II as one of his "Great Movies". The 'however' doesn't fit to my mind (if he defended his original ratings and then added it and not Godfather III, maybe) – it's the logic of the sentence at stake, not the facts, so I don't see why I have to provide a reference to make this change. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no problem then. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You've been a big help before

A long time ago you helped me on List of Honorific titles page, Can you give your opinion on it on this page. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

St. Joseph of the Palisades High School

Please do not start moving articles from "St." to "Saint" as you did with Saint Joseph of the Palisades High School. Too many articles exist with St. to suddenly decide to make the change. It is unnecessary and the redirects it creates will be numerous, and therefore annoying. (When I move a page I try to use the "What Links Here" page to edit all links to the old page to the new page (so link does not go through a redirect page). This is because many users utilize the pages visited color-coding in their web browser and going to a page through a redirect marks the redirect as "read/visited" but not the destination page. But that's just me being a perhaps over-conscientous editor) Thanks. EagleFan (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

PH and FCB sections

Welllllll given the source you are right to get a little sodium chloride ready.

Its a tricky one and we have been round this one a few times. The main guideline being applied was WP:WAF, with a dash of WP:PLOT. The importance of providing a real-world perceptive and avoiding in-universe text has led a number of editors to remove/rewrite the FCB in favour of a bulked up PH. This has been... variably successful (with certain editors producing pretty grim skeletal/listy articles that are very little use - I've reverted a few as they are bordering on vandalism) and has met with a degree of resistance on more popular articles (Final Crisis was a bit of a war).

In some ways the problem seems to be that some people have interpreted this as a "no plot" guideline when that isn't what it says. It is possible to discuss the plot with an out-of-universe twist (just requiring a rephrasing of some words), what we should be watching out for is telling the story in the timeline of the fictional universe (things like retconning origin stories make this a nightmare anyway) and we should, obviously, avoid blow-by-blow retelling of stories (they are both a large part of the problem with an awful lot of comics articles and the effort to edit out all in-universe material, often in a drastic manner, is a reaction to that).

Part of the thinking is also based on observing the natural progression of articles as they progress from B to GA and beyond as they tend to loose a lot of the plot with the focus developing on the characters publication history over the years. As you progress on from B [{WP:FICT]] does become increasingly important but this development is also due to the fact these tend to be the big popular characters who have been around a long time, so major storylines will have been split off to their own articles rather removing the need for an FCB in the article (some have their fictional histories split off, which is a bad idea). Where this type of editing has been applied to minor characters it can be a disaster as here just isn't enough material (or it has just been badly done).

Personally I see no problem with having some kind of out-of-universe plot discussion (as it may be clunky to try and fit it into the PH) and the same could go for FCBs, although I tend to see these changing as the article progresses, so that they become more of a look at how the character has been portrayed over the years and so perhaps changing it to something like "character development" might be a better idea.

Sorry a litle long winded there and I have been on holiday so something might have changed in the meantime (although I'd assume someone would have dropped me a note about something like that) but I hope it helps. It is a tricky issue at the moment and this has been played out on a number of articles but that is my take on it. Others might disagree. (Emperor (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

He has claimed consensus before for his edits but I'm not aware of anything that supports his hardline interpretation of the guidelines. I certianly wouldn't support such a move and have tried time again to point out that WP:FICT (and WP:PLOT) don't mean "no plot."

Looking over the two versions I'd have probably reverted his edit as some changes are arbitary (January to Jan. - I believe there is no right or wrong way, just keep them consistent), linking red and green shouldn't be done, the way to note different volumes is as "Hulk (vol. 2)", the FCB seemed fine as it was tight and out-of-universe - also jamming the PH and FCB together seems to have just inserted an in-universe paragraph into the PH which really shouldn't be done (but I've seen him do exactly that - just jamming the two sections together doesn't satisfy WP:FICT). So there was either no improvement to the article or a degrading of it - in fact it looks like he has partially reverted to an early prefereed (by him) version (it wouldn't be the first time) so I'd check through the history for his previous edits. (Emperor (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

Consecutive citations

Re your edit summary: "There is no need for four consecutive citations of the same source in the same paragraph if they're not interrupted by a different one."

Then how do you distinguish that case from the case where there are three truly unsourced sentences followed by one sourced sentence?

I've seen cases where people try your approach, but then other editors slap {{citeneeded}} tags on the previous sentences. How are those editors supposed to know otherwise? Wasted Time R (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Federal, state, and county representation in NJ city artilces

In my experience, Wikipedia articles on New Jersey municipalities generally include these "Federal, state, and county representation" subsections, stocked with templates for easy construction. Some Hudson County articles, like Bayonne, New Jersey, seem to differ. I think all these subsections could be made uniform with the rest of the NJ municipality articles', and that's what I was doing at the Bayonne article. The change I've made to that is to list only the freeholder who pertains to the municipality in question (e.g. DiDomenico for Bayonne). What do you think? A Stop at Willoughby Current revision as of 19:28, 29 August 2009

I disagree with the idea that DeGise, Corzine, etc. have "nothing to do with Bayonne." Both govern Bayonne, whether through the Hudson County government, the state government, or through Congress. If you're going to mention what congressional and legislative districts Bayonne lies in, why not also say who represents that district? Chiappone, for example, is just one of three people representing Bayonne in Trenton -- but he's the only one who merits mention, simply because he's from Bayonne? To me, that doesn't make much sense. Anyway, it seems that we should take up this topic at WP:WikiProject New Jersey, since this discussion pertains to hundreds of New Jersey-related articles, not just Bayonne's. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I started a discussion on the WikiProject New Jersey talk page and notified active members of the WikiProject. Your input in the discussion would, of course, be highly valued. The discussion can be found here. And feel free to join WP:WikiProject New Jersey by adding your username here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Nightscream: I've replied to your comments and proposed a compromise at the WikiProject New Jersey discussion regarding municipality articles. I would greatly appreciate a response at the discussion, here. And feel free to join WP:WikiProject New Jersey by adding your username here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume that you will, of course, want to in on the compromise. As you know, the full discussion is here. You can now find the amended proposed compromise here, where I'm seeking consensus. I'm interested to see how this will work out. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

New What's New

Out of curiosity, where did you find Park's What's New for yesterday? Mine has not been showing up until Sunday or Monday for the last couple weeks. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia

I'm sorry: I didn't read your edit carefully. A film critic isn't a critic of Wikipedia :) -- Taku (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday September 13th, Columbia University area Last: 07/25/2009

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May 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) 02:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Batgirl

Hey can you help me out on editing this comic book page Batgirl (comic book). --Schmeater (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Before you lose your buttons...

Please read. ThuranX (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nightscream, in my view you have been on warning about using your tools in a dispute. You were already on warning back in February when you blocked Asgardian inappropriately. Now you've protected the page. This is far from your first misuse of your tools: in fact, looking through your administrative actions I find quite a number of other misuses. You indefinitely full-protected Towelie, reversed yourself, and then semi-protected it for the extreme duration of 1 year. You also semi-protected Pandemic (South Park) over IP edits you disagreed with. This is not the first but the second time you have protected Red Hulk which you have been heavily involved in editing. In the discussion that led to Asgardian's unblock, it was revealed that you were sternly warned many times about misusing your tools, yet you blocked Asgardian again. So you've been warned and warned about misusing your tools in your own disputes, yet you routinely do so. I'm going to make a request that you be de-sysoped. And I'm warning you that if you make further misuse of your tools, I will block you to prevent further disruption.

As to the actual issue, Asgardian is correct that there isn't a consensus over the date format thing. I do see that some editors said, speaking generally, that including dates and issue titles is okay as long as not done excessively, but that was (1) over half a year ago, and (2) not a specific opinion on the text in this dispute. As ThuranX said, you have a preferred version just as much as Asgardian does and are pushing hard for your version. This is not a case where Asgardian is misbehaving: I really don't see any evidence of that at all. What I see is that you two are not getting along very well. There's a little revert warring, nothing too bad, and a lot of heat and bad blood. No administrative action is required based on what you've shown me so far. This is not to say that he's not doing anything wrong, but you certainly haven't shown that yet. Mangojuice^talk 17:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've started an WP:AN thread about your misuse of administrative tools. You may want to comment there. Mangojuice^talk 18:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost as important as avoiding impropriety while using the tools is avoiding the appearance of the same. Even if the same action would be made by an uninvolved admin, you should not make that action whilst you are involved. The various noticeboards are always open. I've made numerous reports at WP:RFPP as an admin and they've been fulfilled swiftly. Sometimes it's best to err on the side of caution. Hope this helps explain why people are concerned. Best regards, –xeno^talk 22:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I accept your explanation that this latest protection was a good faith misunderstanding of WP:UNINVOLVED as pertains to page protection. But you have been told over and over again not to use your administrative tools in disputes or when there is a strong appearance of involvement. I feel it's fair to say that the community doesn't agree with me as to the severity of your actions, so I'm dropping the matter here for now, though my warning stands. Sorry if I went over the top. Mangojuice^talk 04:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a thread at ANI concerning you're participation at Red Hulk. Just wanted to make sure that you were aware of it. Cheers, I'^mperator 00:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, you being debuttoned was never my intent; that's why I left you a note and waited hours before filing anything, i hoped you'd see it and correct it. But when what i figured was a fair number of hours went by, I had to do something bigger. I know you may not have even logged in durign that period, but I really felt I was doing the best hign both times. Sorry it got so dramatic. ThuranX (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the NJ reverts

Didn't notice those being recent changes on those articles. I avoided the ones that started the conversation that I saw you had changed(Bayonne, West New York). Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 22:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin tools

I've replied at my talk page. By the way, I think it's about time to archive your talk page. Almost 300k! =) –xeno^talk 13:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor note

I suspect your first link here was meant to be a diff rather than a link to the talkpage of an IP you blocked. Regards,  Skomorokh  18:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Quoting both sources

What I did on the page is exactly what was stated in the page you pointed me to. I sourced the reliable source and the source it was referencing. What I said you can't do is replace the self published source with just a reliable source that is pointing to it. Neutralis (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Opinion

Its just after 1:00AM here and I've had a long day in the library, so I will have to look into this when I am not half a sleep; probably Saturday or Sunday. Would that be acceptable, or would you prefer a swifter reply? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you sir. Two more quick edits then its off to dreamland for me :) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

FFD

I don't know if you have any opinion about cast photos in reality TV articles, but you may be interested in this this and this. Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears our definition of significant differed from that of the closing admin. I would consider WP:DRV, but I don't know if it's worth it. I fear that cast photos from other reality shows may be next on the deletion list. Perhaps it would be a good idea to add a "delsort" category for reality television shows? Thanks for the input even if it did nothing. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In retrospect, it should probably have been delsort-ed in Television related deletion discussions. If a DRV is pursued, I will certainly list it there. It might be easier to just upload it again, and make sure all the "I"s are dotted and "T"s are crossed. Thanks again. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Email

Hi there. I just sent you an email. Amsaim (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Email sent again :). Amsaim (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion policy

Hi. Is there a policy/guideline page that lists criteria by which how an image can significantly add to a reader's understanding of the topic? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)]

Er....no ? Just lots of, sometimes contradictory, past precedents and judgment of the person pressing the buttons. If we had such a (dot point) list then the ensuing interpretation arguments would be most amusing; from a distance. Best Regards - Peripitus (Talk) 21:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you'd find such a thing amusing, nor why you think my question might've been rhetorical (or even "retorical", as you put it). Such decisions should be based on policy, and not contradictory "precedents" that are not evidently documented, nor the subjective judgments of button-pushers who don't seem to take the discussion into account. Can you point me to these precedents? Nightscream (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream, please forgive my tone in the last message - I had assumed (as you have been here longer than me) that you were aware there is no such criteria page and were obliquely questioning my Ffd closure. The one used in these cases is the WP:NFCC list. What I mean by amusing is that, if we had a dot-point criteria, then the subsequent interpretative arguments would (I think) descend into the normal Wikidrama which you can either be amused by or angry at...I chose amused. As a fellow button pusher you know that all policies are descriptive of practice rather firm dictates and usually judgment is required. I took into account the arguments—the precedents I refer to are those from a great many Ffd/Ifd closures; there is no single page that I can point to. I am aware with these Ffd closures, as for all of them, that the non-free criteria are intended to exclude most non-free criteria and good reasons are needed to keep them. I'll discuss the closure of these two at User talk:Plastikspork to keep this all in one place - Peripitus (Talk) 05:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian again (and again)

If you have the time. Given that you also have some experience with him, your input might be helpful. Dave (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about blocks

Good work at the Brooklyn Book Festival!

Some cases can be borderline of course, but in this instance it looks like the vandalism isn't even slightly related to a content dispute, so I can't see there being any conflict of interest for you in taking care of it yourself.--Pharos (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

Can you return the favor and offer up your opinion on a proposed merge? Thanks! Spidey104 (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Another one

Is it possible to simply fix the rationale on this one: File:Myantoniocast.jpg? By the way, I've been very busy at work recently, but I am planning to continue the deletion review process on the prior two. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I think part of the issue is that these images (and many others) were uploaded by ElPilotoDi. When he uploaded them, he wasn't the most careful with filling out all the details, which caught the eye of a particular editor. As a result, they appear to all be on a "hit list". Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I responded to Peripitus on my talk page. I don't know if you have anything you want to add. I will alert him/her to my response if he/she hasn't seen it already. Thanks yet again. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there seems to be some ongoing tension between the uploader and the FFD nominator here. Had these images been uploaded by someone else, they quite possibly would have never been nominated. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

MSC

Hi, curious why you removed the coordinates from the Smithsonian Museum Support Center section? I found them useful, especially as the MSC is being referred to a great deal in popular culture right now. In fact, I've been thinking about expanding the section into an entire article. --Elonka 17:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Kids (film)

• 03:46, 24 May 2008 Nightscream protected Kids (film) ‎ (Persistent vandalism from multiple anonymous IPs, and ignorance of repeated warnings and past blocks. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

That was nearly 18 months ago. I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still necessary. This is as part of my large-scale review of all longstanding indefinite semiprotections. Please see the discussion I started at Talk:Kids (film). --TS 03:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Dr Bat's Talk Page

What was the point of this [22]? Did I attack you or comment on someone else's Talk page as to your progress on an article? I have to say I was disappointed and found it to be a tad immature, and once again, not administrator conduct. Seriously, if someone who didn't know you looked at this objectively, you could stand to lose your privileges. The other administrators don't act like this. Coming to the support of someone who is blindly reverting new material and just made a very personal comment in an Edit Summary (which is going to be reported) wasn't a great move. Had you looked at the other notes on his Talk Page you would have seen he was warned last month for breaking the "3 revert" rule. There's no moral high ground to be had over there.

By the by, if your signature was altered in a discussion, then it was an accident. I'm sorry if you took it personally. I'd be careful about throwing that sort of thing around when a glance at the top of your Talk Page shows you removed someone else's comment from a Talk Page.

Anyway, peace. Just be careful. You don't want to lose administrator privileges over something trivial. It isn't worth it. Regards Asgardian (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not personal. I don't dislike you. I also don't believe that you would lose privileges over this matter. What I was trying to advise you of was that such comments are not administrator conduct, and go to an overall pattern. If you are in dispute with someone in future and they bring all this up, it will be seen in a poor light. Another small example is the changing of the title of this section, and referring to DrBat in a derogatory fashion. Yes, he has acted in an immature fashion and I'm reporting it, but there's no need to return the salvo. We have to be better than this. Otherwise, both we and the articles suffer. Asgardian (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Fall 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan (our cool team galleries)
• Streetfilms: Wikis Take Manhattan (our awesome video)

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

148 Lafayette Street

between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Road article infobox images

Hi. Do the infoboxes images in road articles have to be of the road marker? If I can photos of the road itself, can those be placed in there instead? I tried doing so, and it worked, so is there any policy or guideline forbidding it? Nightscream (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Though I have no particular affinity for the road markers, thay are an element which ties the articles together in the series of which they are part. If you look at the discussion pages of some, you will notice they are rated within The infobox, with marker, is standard. The person(s) who are particpate would most likely not take kindly to the markers removal. My preference/inclination would be to leave it, as I also used it a impetus to write some of them (Category:County Routes in Hudson County, New Jersey) Why not add photos elsewhere in the articles?.Djflem (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your uncivil post on my talk page

It's extremely uncivil, and borders on intellectual dishonesty, to post a warning like the one you posted on my talk page, simply because you disagree with an edit. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Dead Celebrities

Just a request for a bit of advice, we're discussing here the addition, removal and subsequent readdition of what (in my own opinion) was a bit of trivia.

What would be your opinion on proceeding. Given that there are quite a few editors involved, but it's pretty low level importance, should we just leave it in and gather what consensus we can in the mean time? It seems those in favour of the addition are mostly anonymous IPs, so I had thought maybe leave it until they're bored of wikipedia!

Is there a more formal process? Everything above 3O seems to deal with differences between editors, so I wasn't sure where to go from there. Alastairward (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling images

When changing the infobox picture in wrestling articles, please move the old infobox picture elsewhere in the article instead of just removing it. This is especially important in articles like Nora Greenwald, which only would have one image otherwise. Thanks. Nikki♥311 22:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September 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) 03:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Smasher.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Smasher.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

DisneyRah

OK, thanks for the heads up! I'll keep on eye on him/her. Zagalejo^^^ 20:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:VathSarn.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:VathSarn.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 04:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristian Ayre

Please explain this[23] as you did nothing with any signature, but did remove a large portion of the discussion and refactored PadGuy's comments? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Steve Ward (businessman)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Steve Ward (businessman), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Steve Ward. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Behle could be correct

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Steve Ward (businessman)

A tag has been placed on Steve Ward (businessman) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Darrenhusted (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Priscilla Barnes

Her birthdate & birthplace is sourced. See the 'Movie Data Base', at bottom of the article. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend leaving the birthdate & birthplace in place & adding a [unsourced tag]. Afterall, the gal was born (at sometime). If I'm correct about other celeb bios, then there's alot of fixing to do. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we parly at Barnes' talkpage? I'm getting Wiki-whiplash. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of North Hudson Park UFO sightings

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is North Hudson Park UFO sightings. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Hudson Park UFO sightings. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Line breaks in Lincoln

I have restored the line breaks before & after </ref>s in the Lincoln article. I know they are unnecessary for readers and for computers, but they assists editors in finding the ends of refs & where the body text begins again (and the separation between 2 successive refs) -- AND add only 1 character per reference. I think it is well-worth the extra 270 or so characters in the entire article. I also removed some approximately 400 spaces that help nobody (tho' some do avoid turning on spell-checker flags). I am not sure how much text you edited though, so you might want to take a look again at that section.--JimWae (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

Can you voice your opinion about a proposed merge? Thanks. --Spidey104^contribs 15:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

CSD help

does this article qualify for speedy deletion? Thanks A8UDI 01:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Dallas

Hi Nightscream,

I noticed that you reverted my edit to the Dallas (TV series) article and I was wondering why. I had replaced a link to a disambiguation page with a link to the intended target; such a replacement is required by this guideline. Any clarification would be much appreciated. Thank you, Neelix (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Jumpstartation

Could you consider removing that final warning you put on his page? He'd already been warned for both of those edits earlier. Blueboy96 02:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Warnings

Try second time, not third. ;) -- DisneyRah (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Flickr

I would like to add images to the Thomasina Winslow and Tom Winslow articles. Can we download them from Flickr as fair use? See Flickr. Bearian (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jeff Dunham

I assure you my edits were made in good faith. I meant to correct information that is misleading, and remove information that is irrelevant. 1. I miswrote the cite to the FAA's website. Information on pilot certificates is public information available to anyone, but unfortunately, you can't link directly to it. There is an intermediate step where you have to provide some information about yourself, then search for the pilot in question. If there's a way to write a proper cite to web data without linking directly to it, let me know. 2. Saying Jeff Dunham's helicopter is "unlicensed by the Federal Aviation Administration" is false. If it were, he would be committing a federal crime by flying it. His helicopter, like all homebuilt aircraft registered in the US, carries a Special Airworthiness Certificate in the Experimental category. 3. Quoting Dunham's appearance on Fast Living verbatim saying that "he can fly them up to 600 feet in the air, and up to 90 miles an hour" is misleading. It implies that this is all that his helicopter is capable of, when in fact it is capable of far more. Besides, the performance of the helicopter is irrelevant to this article, which is why I deleted it. The fact that he has built and flies his own RotorWay should be enough. Given this information, do what you will with it. Protecting an article from vandalism and addition of unsourced material is a good thing. Restricting all edits to those that parrot various media outlets verbatim takes it too far. It results in a lot of information being taken out of context which in turn misleads the reader. Good day. Shreditor (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Internet Movie database appears to be a reliable source because it is linked at the bottom of the Jeff Dunham article. So doesn't it need to be removed if it is not a reliable source since it is "user-generated"?-VarietyPerson (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why the semiprot at Kirk Cameron?

Hi! Can you enlighten me on this? I'm not getting your reasoning for semi-protection of Kirk Cameron. Auntie E. 17:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Lily Collins AfD

My comment as to bringing up gender was only with regard to gender in scope. I agree that whether you personally had heard about Lily Collins is completely irrelevant to the AfD discussion, and I said nothing to validate that part of the complaint. I had never heard of Lily Collins before, either. Evangeline's comment that I was responding to had to do with whether being chosen by Chanel to wear one of its gowns at a charity ball was notable. As I read her comments, I took her to mean that was a clear indication that someone had the eye of society and was considered someone of influence in the world/industry of fashion. I personally know bupkis about the world of fashion, but I think her argument has some validity - that this is probably a definition of notability that the majority of wikipedia editors would not consider valid AND that that opinion might in large part derive from the fact that they are male. On that point, it wasn't a question of verifyable references, nor of gender-specific references, you're right. The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail both corroberated the event. But you seemed to be arguing that the articles referenced were only talking about the subject because of her parentage, while Evangeline was arguing that the nature of the event reported - a young debutant being selected to wear a gown by a premiere fashion line - was outstanding enough to reflect that the individual had the attention of society and industry on her own merits and beyond merely who her father was. You were derrogatory toward her line of reasoning, and she asserted that it would make sense to you if you weren't a man. Her wording was overly defensive and scornful, I would agree, but she's a newbie editor and was frustrated and didn't know the system so I'm willing to give her some leeway as to how she expressed her frustrations. My point was that I think the nature of her complaint was correct, and I was trying to help her (and anyone else reading) think of it as a systemic problem, and one that should be addressed by getting involved in defining and discussing the guidance system rather than in attacking an individual editor. If I didn't make that clear, I'm sorry. Unfortunately the discussion is archived now so it would be inappropriate for me to add clarification. Netmouse (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian RFC/U

User:BOZ has started to build a very compelling case against Asgardian. I gave him permission to use my list for some assistance. Given that you have had some dealings with him in the past, I thought that you may have some useful information to add. Also, if you know about other editors who have had similar experiences, please pass the message along. Dave (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I was wondering if you would help me finish up the RFC/U regarding User:Asgardian. I'm going to put the RFC into place before the end of the year, so it would really be great if you could provide any help you are able to give. What I need most are diffs displaying the disputed behavior. I have some already here, but could use some more. I mean just a list of diffs to put in the first five or so categories I listed there, as I already have more than enough illustrative examples. Anything that you think is edit warring (mutiple similar edits to the same article in the span of a few days), incivility, inaccurate edit summaries, or other similar behavioral problems. List them on the RFCU talk page - just the diffs is all I need, because I want people reading the RFC to be able to draw their own conclusions.

Also, I have come up with a desired outcome and a description of the case based on the comments that have been gathered, and I would appreciate any responses to that on the talk page. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm just letting you know that the Asgardian RFC/U has begun. Also, you made statements pertaining to the case, and I tried to reflect all the major points in my summary. If you feel there is something you wanted to be said that I did not cover sufficiently (or accurately enough to reflect your viewpoint), you may post an "Involved user view" below Asgardian's response section to elaborate. You may wish to copy, whole or in part, any previous statements you have made (with or without diffs or links) into such a new section as you desire. Thank you for your participation. BOZ (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Just letting you know that this RFC is now active due to having gotten three signatures within 48 hours. I'm sure you would have something to say. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's the significance of adding your signature. :) BOZ (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You should probably sign where I did, under "users endorsing"; I think saying you've tried and failed would be piling on at this point unless you really feel you want to be on the record with that. You might also want to write up an "Outside view by involved user Nightscream" with linked diffs and such. Daniel Case (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I locked the draft page for a reason - time to move on to the live page. ;) Hey, Merry Christmas! BOZ (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem; yep, the draft page was just a place to get our thoughts together, while the live RFC page was to be used for when things get started. You can just copy and paste anything you wrote to the main page, if that makes things easier. Go here, and at the bottom of that start a new subsection called "Involved view by Nightscream", and add whatever you feel best describes your feelings on the situation with Asgardian. Replies to other views go in a new section on the talk page. BOZ (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - at this point it's not so much of a "view"(point), as it is a list of examples. To make it a view (which other participants could more effectively endorse or argue against), it would likely be sufficient for you to add a sentence either before or after the list of examples stating something to the effect of "I feel the situation with Asgardian is BLAH and affects other editors as BLAH, as these examples will illustrate." Although it is not necessarily to do so, and you could just let what you have already done stand as-is. Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That'll work! Good idea. And then you might want to endorse your own view by signing it. BOZ (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)