User talk:Niteshift36

Corkscrew store photo

that would be incredibly cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyapetty (talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Gang

I noticed that you been editing the Gang article . I just created a Portal (Portal:Gang) I need your help. If you have time, Can you help add some content to my portal. I would appreciate it, Thanks.--Zink Dawg -- 06:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Prod on David M. Malone

Drmies has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Wikiwings

		Wikiwings
		For extraordinary contributions to Aircraft in fiction, thus improving hundreds of aircraft type articles along the way! - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked. This barnstar is awarded to User:Niteshift36, for his dedication to compromise and his ability to work with other editors to come up with amicable solutions which satisfy everyone. Thank you for your valiant efforts to the project. Ikip (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Our earlier disputes

Hello, I'd like to formally apologize for any hurt feelings I may have caused, on the stormfront (website) page. I think we all have heated opinions about this, but I look forward to working with you to make a better article for everyone. Cheers :) Mr. Kent (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

A beer for you!

No worries, Niteshift--I was happy to back you up there (that was easy anyway, since you were right). Man, some people need to get out more, so they don't have so many words left when they get here. Cheers! Drmies (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Peace

~ Kimelea (talk) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Thank you, fine by me. Let's move on. ~ Kimelea (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Just from another editor who works on Florida articles. ...William 00:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You are courageous. MONGO 03:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

More beer! Drmies (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Who doesn't love free beer. :) Niteshift36 (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Tell you what, I had the opposite happen tonight. Old neighbor comes by, there's a bottle of champagne, she and Mrs. Drmies claim to be tired etc; by the time they're gone and I'm thinking about finishing that bottle, it's empty after all. Plus they were disrespecting the Clint Eastwood movie I was watching, tsk tsk. Also, I made a promise: to not respond at ANI. Hey, we're all buddy-buddy now, with all this stuff going on, but weren't we in a fight a couple of months ago? Where you were wrong, of course. Later! Drmies (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For working with me on Dave Aronberg article. You've supported him, I was dead set against his most recent bid for office, but we worked together to make the article encyclopedic rather than looking like a press release. ...William 17:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

PC reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Hi, Niteshift - i have a problem and could use your help. My husband is Kermit Alexander and we have been trying to update his page to be more relevant and approachable. All the edits I have been making seem to become undone. Pictures from our personal files seem to be deleted. I am so technically challenged so I become frustrated after reading hours and hours of how-tos just to be dismissed. So how can you and I become friends that you will contribute to Kermit Alexander's? He worked really hard to become an author and now I'm stumpted on how to tell the world about his efforts. Hanna33 (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Evading block

Hey, this is a heads-up: CrazyAces was blocked for six months on his original account and an IP account (see User talk:173.52.99.208) for one month. If you find another account which resembles him, he is evading a block and should be taken to ANI. Sorry to bother you with this, but you know his habits as much as I do.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• I caught up on that when I saw the block on his talk page (I have it watch listed). Always something with him. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh okay good. He mentioned another account used since February 2016. It must still exist somewhere but I haven't found any user which resembles his "style". I'm not going to get too search too deep because he always seems to make a scene at some point or another.

Update: The account was/is User:BlackAmerican, at least I safely can say so by comparing editing styles. I contacted Bishonen about it and am waiting for a response. Another big.clean-up will be underway because I have seen handfuls of bare links and unnotable subjects.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Inquiry About Recent Dispute

Hello, I am reaching out to you about a recent dispute you were involved in regarding the Joel Osteen and Lakewood Church articles. From my understanding, you were reported by user Nihlus Kryik for edit warring. I am writing an in-depth article about the management of Wikipedia and I am trying to learn more about situations like yours. Would you be willing to talk to me more about this situation? --Investigativereporter (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Sure. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Great! What is the best form of communication for you? --Investigativereporter (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• You can click on the "email this user" tool on the left side and it will send it to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I have left you an email. --Investigativereporter (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Niteshift36. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Named in an article

Be advised, it seems you have been mentioned in an off-wiki article [1].--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow, someone is pretty literal. You have to love a troll that doesn't allow anyone to comment or correct his errors. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

After reading that article, I'll bet the author's mommy still cuts his meat for him.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Lol. Quite possibly. He actually thinks I claim to be an actual Jedi. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Niteshift36. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 17:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Hello it's been awhile since I've been on here. Although, we've come into contact through Wikipedia gang related articles. While we have had disputes over handling of race issues which I am very socially liberal about, I apologize for coming at you hostile. We need to be allies in order to make things work. There are bigger political issues on Wikipedia and I think you know what I'm talking about. There are Wikipedians who don't value freedom of speech or freedom of information, and I honestly wouldn't doubt that they are being payed off this very moment. While we disagree on some points, we both have something in common: a love for the Constitution, accuracy, and presentation of facts. There is few of us here on Wikipedia and we are outnumbered. Neutral point of view, lack of COI, and accuracy of information needs to be kept alive here. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 03:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Niteshift36. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Redlink User contributions

Hi Nightshift, I'm asking you as you know a lot more about film plot guidelines etc., than I do. I just found the Good Shepherd article had most of its bluelinks and the names of the actors removed from its plot summary in one fell swoop. Jmg38's ed said the actors were "fully covered in the cast section" and that the links were "overlinking". Curious definition of overlinking to the say the very least. I reverted the article, then had a look at their contribs: that's literally all this person's been doing for a little while: removing actors' names and bluelinks from plot summaries in films, basically undoing a lot of work for no really good reason. I could be wrong about one of these things (maybe the MOS for films is updated and we no longer include actors in plot summaries or something? but not the so-called overlinking, surely. I didn't want to go and undo all the rest without asking first, and in any case, if I am right, maybe it's better an admin has a word with this person--somehow, I don't know how since they have no talk page. ZarhanFastfire (talk)

• I spend a lot of time eliminating overlinking, but this editor is taking the wrong approach. They have a talk page, it has just never been used. If you post on it, the page will show up. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

ZarhanFastfire - you've done some terrific work on The Good Shepherd article this month, such as cleaning up the "Historical accuracy"/"Criticism" discussion as well as adding detail about historical characters. Shows that you understand the process. Not sure why you have so much care and concern for a plot "synopsis" that was 1,060 words long, when 400 to 700 is the general target. If "basically undoing a lot of work" is the criteria, then no editor should ever expect their input to be touched, revised, expanded, reduced, spellchecked? If the clearly given reasons can be passed off as "for no really good reason", does that mean that every edit must include a 600+ word Edit summary? In that case...

The "Plot" section is the place to tell readers about the story of the film, in a somewhat concise way. "Plot" is not about the actors, it's about the story - that's why there is a helpful section called "Cast" immediately below "Plot", in the same way that "Production" notes and "Reception" notes do not go into "Plot" section (I have seen editors commonly address this when cleaning up articles that confuse the "Plot" section as the place to discuss camera angles or the place to mention an Academy Award winning performance). And 32 bluelinks is sacrosanct? Readers have come here to find out about the film and the story it tells, and generally will not be clueless about what the FBI is (don't worry, here's a bluelink), what an admiral is (don't worry, here's a bluelink), have no idea what asylum means nor what bearing it might have on this film's plot (don't worry, here's a bluelink), wonder about this unheard of River Thames (don't worry, here's a bluelink), be unsure if the plot is addressing the Nazis that started a world-wide war with 70,000,000 people killed (don't worry, here's a bluelink), been meaning to look up this Soviet Union place (don't worry, here's a bluelink). If these are needed, then why not continue down that path with a bluelink for "general" (similar to "admiral"), "defector" (similar to "asylum"), "German" (similar to "Soviets"), London (similar to "River Thames") and 32 others?

The revisions were not a wholesale removal of bluelinks. The revisions that were made did maintain bluelinks to lesser known places/things/organizations like Skull and Bones, Deer Island (Thousand Islands), Special Operations Executive, Leopoldville, Office of Strategic Services, reel-to-reel tape (could have cut bluelink? some younger readers might not see this very often, so wasn't sure), Bay of Pigs Invasion (could have cut bluelink? the specific turn of events in this singular action did seem to be intelligence-based, so thought it might be a more specific and direct tie-in to the story of the intelligence organization being told by the film, so wasn't sure).

No real need for you to add the "marketing" when selling your concern to Niteshift36 – as in "that's literally all this person's been doing for a little while" – in order to pump up some notion that there is evil intent that can be confirmed by the amount of effort put into the edits. This editor has made 1,022 edits since November 1. Not all of them were gems, not all of them were major (nearly 500 were 50 bytes or less on typos or format or a couple words of detail or clarity), not all of them were reductions (nearly 600 were an increase in size of an article) and not all of them were film plot related (888 were not related to your implication that this editor has done nothing else). One of the edits should have been to chop at least 360 words out of the "Plot" section for The Good Shepherd, or at least add the bloated plot warning "This article's plot summary may be too long or excessively detailed". Will address that now.Jmg38 (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• For someone championing brevity, that's a really long response. I detest overlinking. If you look at my edit history, you'll see a lot of edit summaries that read "reduce overlinking". But we have to keep in mind that all English speakers aren't Americans and won't necessarily know what we think is "common knowledge". I've supported keeping this plot summary brief longer than anyone. Please don't confuse plot summary and wikilinking issues. And please take this entire discussion to the article talk page, where it properly belongs. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you - you have exactly captured my point. The 600-words is not what I would ever want to add, when my original 6-word edit summary already said what was being done. Also brought the discussion here because the concern raised had been focused on Good Sheperd, but had also been directed at more than just that article. Jmg38 (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• I am involved at Good Shepard. As far as I know, I haven't interacted with your edits anywhere else. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Niteshift, sorry to continue on here but I need to reference above.@Jmg38)Thanks for the acknowledgement of my own work on the film.) I am not sure why you are thanking Niteshift when he is essentially telling you that you are wrong: he makes a valid point that you are mistaken in your belief that what you, personally, think is obvious constitutes overlinking: you are presuming too much common knowledge on the part of English Wikipedia readers. While this is not Simple English Wikipedia, not all of our readers have had the benefit of a certain level of education, may not be particularly well read or indeed well served by what opportunities to learn life has given them. As an example, the thirtysomething woman who runs a deli close to where I work had no idea who Karl Marx is, someone I just assumed any adult in their 30s would have heard about. I note you've reverted me while the discussion is ongoing which is not generally how these things work (see WP:BRD). ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Apparently you're famous, just thought you should know. Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 20:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, she loves me. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Merely a formality: it does not look like you've been notified in the past 12 months. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

National Rifle Association

Your edits in National Rifle Association and comments in Talk:National Rifle Association seem to have a long-term pattern of removing and advocating against content that is critical of the organization.

If you can't cover the NRA neutrally, perhaps you should refrain from editing the article? Cinteotl (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)