User talk:Nightscream

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to my Talk Page. If you're new to Wikipedia, you can leave me a message about a new topic by placing it at the bottom of this talk page, under a new heading with a title that refers to the article or topic in question. To create a header, just put two sets of equals signs on each side of the section's title. Please sign your message by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the message, which also automatically time stamps them. Thanks. :-)

Pffffft.gif

Medical articles[edit]

On medical articles we cite every sentence. Please do not do this.[1]

Basing what you do on an essay is not best practice. Please note that we also have Wikipedia:Citation underkill Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Doc James: Wikipedia:Citation underkill is also an essay. Nightscream (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes exactly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edit appears to violate WP:V policy. Others must also be able to verify the content. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Sorry, I forgot it was medical-related. Thansk for the reminder. Nightscream (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I suggest you don't cite WP:REPCITE in your edit summary again. We don't edit differently on different articles. WP:CHALLENGE states "All content must be verifiable." The content is not verifiable if the citation is removed. In the last two years there has been way too much policy violations showing up on my watchlist. Please read here. Then go read here and here. Citation overkill is causing mass citation clutter. The overkill essay is dated and people are misreading it. All the problems have been fixed with the citation overkill buster. QuackGuru (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Content is indeed verifiable via the citation at the end of the passage supported by the source. Placing a citation at the end of every sentence is clutter, and poor composition. WP:REPCITE is a valid principle, and I will continue to edit citation clutter according to it, with the exception of medical articles. Nightscream (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Comics character material[edit]

When I looked at your comparisons, I'd like to let you know that I didn't add in the wrong information for the citation of the comic where Stegron collaborated with Sauron and have been trying to do comparisons to find out who did. The suggestions of websites you sent me is what I have been doing when trying to find source character pages for Clash after Argento Surfer did a merge discussion and I got that information from him when I asked about how to find information to improve that page. The past tense thing is a force of habit which I apologize for. Did I leave anything out? As for Miles Morales, I'd like to let you know that I haven't edited that page which you mostly do edits for. That would explain to you why I haven't added the name of the genetically-altered spider that bit Miles Morales in the "Ultimate Spider-Man" episode of Spider-Man. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You need to read people's messages more carefully, since much of what you just said has nothing to do with what I did.
To clarify:
I did not say anything about "wrong information". I said that you could include the full publication info, and that even when this is not available to you, you could, at a minimum, at least include the publisher name, since you're aware of when the publisher of an issue you cite is Marvel or DC. I also pointed out that mentioned this to you last year.
I did not indicate that you edited the Miles Morales article. Go back and read what I actually wrote in regards to that article.
I understand the issue of habit regarding past tense wording. Duly noted. I'm sure you'll get the hang of it. Nightscream (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ultimate Spider-Man (character), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parallel universe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

World of Warcraft: Cycle of Hatred listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect World of Warcraft: Cycle of Hatred. Since you had some involvement with the World of Warcraft: Cycle of Hatred redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice[edit]

As someone who has edited Lyndsy Fonseca, you may or may not wish to join a discussion at Talk:Lyndsy Fonseca#Request for comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Traci Bingham[edit]

Hello Nightscream. Thank you for taking time to advise us of some unknown rules/etiquette regarding wiki edits. Specifically we are having difficulty with the Traci Bingham/Vallier (Baywatch actress) page. Perhaps the public would be better served if instead of undoing the factually and legally correct information we've updated, that you might help us post it in a more agreeable light? We've update the CA court's url. A name serach of Miss Vallier will verify the court indeed found a judgment of over $172,000 against Miss Vallier. It is now over $200,000 with interest. Additionally we've added the Docket number regarding the multiple CAPIAS ARREST attempts made against her in Cambridge, MA where at the time she indeed lived with her mother (also noted in the contracts, on record with the court). So while you apparently don't believe the information valid, simply because you didn't properly research the court records, listen to her own audio (again provided link/info to her/recordings), that isnt' our fault, nor does it make it untrue. Please take the time to familiarize yourself and see we're quite clear and honest in our relaying of the information. If the update still doesn't meet your standards, while factually accurate, do the community a favor and help us properly edit it instead of removing it. Thank you. Litbreeze (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

(To Litbreeze) You're millimeters away from being blocked for egregious violations of the biographies of living persons policy. "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" Leave all that to TMZ. Acroterion (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
And now blocked - I see no possibility that this editor intends to abide by Wikipedia policy. Acroterion (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Peter tomarken listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Peter tomarken. Since you had some involvement with the Peter tomarken redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PamD 21:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Lady xorn listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lady xorn. Since you had some involvement with the Lady xorn redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PamD 18:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Citation order[edit]

Hi. Please don't reorder citations numerically. Sometimes (not to say often) editors put citations in a specific order for a reason, and there is little reader value in ascending numerical sequence of a string of cites. Thanks. ―Mandruss  21:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Keeping cites in numerical order has been the standard practice for as long as I can remember since I began editing in 2005. What was the specific reason you were referring to for putting them out of that order? Nightscream (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
There used to be a bot that went around "fixing" that. It was defeated by community consensus with high participation, largely because it removed editor control over citation order. That's why you never see those bot edits anymore. I'm not aware of a need for a specific order in that specific case, I'm speaking in general. ―Mandruss  22:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mandruss: I don't recall where I may have read this, since it's been years, but citations look more presentable when they're in numeral order, with the ref name tags of previously cited sources given before new ones. Why does there need to be editor control over citation order? If there's not a specific reason, why did you mention it? Nightscream (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Not all citations in a string are created equal. Sometimes one is more important than the other two or three, and I want it first. I think I should have that discretion as an editor. All this was discussed at great length during the RfC (I think it was an RfC, anyway) about the bot. Surely you can understand that I'm talking about the general principle, not a specific case? ―Mandruss  22:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Generalizations are sometimes easily illustrated with specific examples, and I cannot think of a specific example of one in a string being "more" important than another, aside from the presentability effected by numerical order. But I'm open-minded to hearing you provide one. (Hint, hint). :-) Nightscream (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
If I'm required to produce a specific case from memory, this ends our conversation and I won't waste any more of our time. Thanks. ―Mandruss  22:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Here's that RfC. It was easier to find than I expected. Cheers. ―Mandruss  12:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Thanks. Interesting read. I'm glad you didn't have to go slogging through too much stuff to get it. Of course, that discussion and its resolution only pertain to having a bot do this automatically. It does not support your admonishment for me to cease doing it manually, something I've been doing for over a decade. Again, I'm open-minded enough to hear out an editor if they tell me that there's a reason against it in a particular situation. Otherwise, I'm going to continue in the practice. Hope we can agree to disagree. Nightscream (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
All I can tell you is that (1) it should be obvious that there are cases where one citation warrants more prominent placement than the others in a string, and that shouldn't need "proving"; and (2) I know I have done so multiple times, whether I can remember them or not, and I shouldn't need to "prove" that I'm not just making shit up (what would be my reason for doing so?). Further, that RfC shows that the community does not share your view that numerical ordering is all that important just because some academics say it is. If "agree to disagree" means not taking the issue to a higher level, then we can agree to disagree. But you have no case, regardless, and I hope you will come to realize that with the passage of time. Thanks for being civil while being unreasonable. ―Mandruss  15:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mandruss: I never said nor implied that you were "making shit up", and the thought genuinely never occurred to me. There have been times when I cited some policy/guideline/principle of editing but couldn't remember the precedent or namespace page for it, so I just assumed that was the case with you here. With regard to any obligation on your part to provide examples, editors arguing over prevailing editing principles should generally try to meet in the middle, with those one side keeping an open mind, and those on the other making their case. If the latter put forward the idea that there are situations in which Editing Habit X should not apply, the most the former can do is keep an open mind, pending examples. You may not "have" to provide one, but if you don't, what do you expect me to do? Simply stop the practice in question because someone who's only been editing since 2013 says "please don't do that", while providing no rationale for this? That is not a "higher" level, that's just a level in line with your personal aesthetics. The RfC shows that ascending order of citations is, like many other practices on Wikipedia, one on which there is disagreement in the community, and not that there is any consensus for or against it, since that discussion concerned only whether it should be bot-automated. I continue to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brain falls out. If examples that illustrate an idea sufficient to persuade me to change an editing habit are not forthcoming, then I cannot offer agreement. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
while providing no rationale for this? If you seriously feel that I have provided no rationale, you haven't been reading my comments fairly. Your actions are inconsistent with a fair reading of the spirit of the RfC consensus, whether its letter explicitly prohibited human edits or not. The only reason for such a distinction would be that humans can apply intelligence to specific cases, but you are not doing anything like that. You are simply blindly reordering out-of-order citations—no different from what the bot was doing except in volume. ―Mandruss  16:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: The RfC showed that many in the community are for ascending order, and many are not. In other words, there's no clear consensus on manual reordering, aside from your mere insistence that there is, which is simply your attempt to push your preferred practice. I have indeed read your statements, and I have responded to them. You mentioned that some citations are "more important" than others, but did not explain why. I asked you for an example of this, and you said you could not. You insisted it "should be obvious" that there are certain cases of this, but where unable to elaborate on this. Since I'm not aware of any offhand, I said I'd keep an open mind for the occasion when that type of situation occurs, while maintaining my current practices of reordering. That's a level of open-mindedness on my part that I would think would be appreciated. But you want others to do as you say, simply for having said so, without providing any specific rationale. That's not how it works on Wikipedia. Again, take care. Nightscream (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You'll accept a hypothetical? You didn't make that clear. Ok. One citation provides verifiability for something that is controversial, or for BLP reasons. Another two citations in the string provide verifiability for a time-of-day and an uncontroversial quotation. Can I place the first citation first and expect it to stay there indefinitely (unless another editor decides that a different citation is more important)? Or, am I not allowed to judge, as a Wikipedia editor, that such placement benefits readers? ―Mandruss  16:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I note that you dropped out of this discussion as soon as I gave you the rationale you asked for, the absence of which you previously used to dismiss me with repeated take cares. (There is a second scenario for ordered cites that I didn't mention.) Is this what you call open mind and fair debating? Is this how it works on Wikipedia? Not on my Wikipedia. Don't bother responding, I know WP:IJDLI when I see it and my questions are rhetorical. You take care. ―Mandruss  15:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Real Life Barnstar.jpg The Real Life Barnstar
I want to give you the Real Life Barnstar for your beautiful and kind comment on User talk:GabrielAmmirata. Thank you for having empathy and compassion for this soul, even if it is a simple message on Wikipedia. It is so nice that editors still remember that there is a person behind each account, in real life, editing Wikipedia for a variety of causes they care about. Thank you. CookieMonster755 22:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Heather Nauert[edit]

Hi. Please do not add uncited material to articles, as you did with this edit to Heather Nauert. As I'm sure you must know by now, Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citations. It is even more important with material that could conceivably be regarded as contentious, such as Trump administration appointments. If you intend to restore the material, please do so only if it is accompanied by citations. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Nightscream, a lot of work for easily verified info. Try to AGF. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 19:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC) (Original message)
@Classicwiki: I did assume good faith. I assumed that when you added uncited material to an article, that there was some reason for this, so after removing it, I politely notified you so that if you wanted, you could restore it with an accompanying citation, which you did, none of which exhibited bad faith. As for "a lot of work", I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're referring to by this. The fact that it's easily verified is precisely one reason the material should not have been added without a citation, per WP:V. Thanks for doing so, as it is genuinely appreciated.
As for the rather arrogant, condescending comment you made in your edit summary, "Try to contribute", perhaps if you bothered consulting the article's edit history, you might've noticed the nine edits I made to the article prior to your most recent ones. Do those not count as "contributions"? You might also consider the 128,000 edits I've made here since 2005, which unlike the 8,000 you've made here since 2013, do not consist of adding uncited material to articles, lashing out at others who politely point this out to you by falsely accusing them of violating AGF, and then continuing to omit important information during edits, like author names in citations. They consist of a lot of hard work, including single-handedly writing four Good Articles, contributing over 10,000 photos to the Commons, and cleaning up uncited material added to articles by editors like you. It's why the top of my User Page is filled with laudatory compliments by various members of the editing community, while yours isn't.
In fact, it's kinda funny how the top of your user page says, "Assume good faith and let me know how I can improve!", yet when I politely told you how to improve, you acted as if the very act of doing so was itself a violation of Assume Good Faith. Perhaps you should make up your mind on this point? Something to think about, Mm'kay? Nightscream (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Daily News (New York)[edit]

What can I say? I agree with you completely. The arguments at the Move discussion came down to "I don't care what the actual name is, we're going to title this article something the paper doesn't call itself and no one in New York City ever calls it." The fact the populist crowd refused to even title it "New York Daily News", to remove the implication that "New York" is part of the formal proper-noun name, is what really astounded me.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Italicizing names of networks[edit]

Hi,

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%93present)&diff=832139071&oldid=832137113

Should the names of the websites of TV networks be italicized, or referred to as CNN.com, CNBC.com, etc?

Italicize the titles of magazines, books, newspapers, academic journals, films, television shows, long poems, plays, operas, musical albums, works of art, websites

Cheers soibangla (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Use of WP:OVERLINK[edit]

Hi,

I hope you're being careful with WP:OVERLINK, because some of my edits may appear to have redundant references, when actually the edit contains a composite of information across multiple references. I'd like to avoid someone later saying that the provided reference does not support the edit contents, because the reference that did was removed.

Cheers soibangla (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blind Al, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBR (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

False information accusation[edit]

I put in what I saw in the source. I didn’t insert anything “false”. The source I initially found didn’t outline her charges yet. Rusted AutoParts 22:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It didn’t list any charges, it only stated Mack was arrested in Brooklyn by the FBI and would be arraigned later that day. If anything incorrect was interpreted it wasn’t my intent. Rusted AutoParts 02:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

List of suicides[edit]

Re: your edit summary here supposedly concerning this edit by IP 63.142.136.2, see this. I'm not sure whose vandalism you reverted, but it wasn't that IP, who only performed one edit at that article – the edit I reverted. General Ization Talk 00:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, you may want review the sequence of your edits today at List of suicides; in the one you claimed was related to my edit (it wasn't), you removed 22,322 bytes from the article, and in the subsequent edit you restored 23,859 bytes; the size of these edits seems to be inconsistent with your edit summaries. General Ization Talk 01:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I just looked down the diff of my edits. Where is this 22 KB you mentioned? I removed three persons that had been added without citations, removed some line breaks (including five line breaks that were added beneath the image of Robert Fitzroy), and some minor irrelevant comments or passages, but nothing major (certainly nothing that was relevant and cite-supported). Which material are you referring to?

As for the edit summary that mentioned you, I apologize. That was my error. Nightscream (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nightscream: I am not referring to the edit you linked above. When I look at the edit history of List of suicides, I see these two edits:
  • 23:03, 22 April 2018‎ Nightscream‎ (246,967 bytes) (+23,859)‎ (Consistent date formatting; The Sunday Times is not called "Sunday Times (UK)"; WP:OVERLINK; the word "kamikaze" is not italicized, nor is there any reason to hyphenate its use with "pilot"; "Yuki died at 17 in a kamikaze attack" doesn't go in a url parameter; CBC isn't a "newspaper", and isn't italicized; Pravda.ru is not reliable per WP:IRS; provided method for Ushijima, with cite; the cite for Ying Yin is a blog, which violates WP:USERG; etc.)
  • 22:48, 22 April 2018‎ Nightscream (223,108 bytes) (-22,322)‎ (Revert vandalism by 63.142.136.2, since General Ization, who issued the warning to him, didn't restore the material.)
Are you seeing something different? The possiblility that you removed and added something other than you intended is precisely why I bring it up. General Ization Talk 01:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@General Ization: (Looks at individual diffs) Whoa. That is weird. I don't know how that happened, but those removals apparently did not take during the course of my total edits, because when you look at the diff showing the total edits, those removals aren't there. So yeah, it does look different when you view the total edits. Can you check the total diff to see what I'm saying? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it does appear that you restored the content in the 23:03 edit that you seem to have inadvertently removed in the 22:48 edit (so a diff that spans the period would not reflect the removal). General Ization Talk 01:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@General Ization: So we're good? Nightscream (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course we are. We never were not good. General Ization Talk 01:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Glen Talbot[edit]

Maybe check what your edits do before claiming it was "not bad"? Not my fault that you screwed up. And I also don't agree with how you want to do the subheaders.★Trekker (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, calling a sub header simple "animation" is completely idiotic, it give no context, how is anyone supposed to know that it means only "TV animation", the vast majority of articles on comics characters uses the ond format, who cares a single bit what you think if soverkill? And calling "subheaders" simply "Marvel Cinematic Universe" has been rejected repeatedly every time it has been proposed on any of the comic project.★Trekker (talk) 07:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Look at this edit, look what you did, see why I called it bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glenn_Talbot&diff=837789823&oldid=837706665

Your edit was bad, your idea of how of how the article should be is bad. You are a sad pathetic thing who threatens blocks and keeps edit warring as well.★Trekker (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@*Treker::
1. The MCU section is not a subheading of Animation, as both are Level 3 subheadings. My first edit may have failed to remove the fourth equal sign from the right side of the heading, but the second one did not, nor did the one I just did. Both are now Level 3 subheadings. One is not a subheader of the other.
2. You are not just reverting the heading. You also removed the other parts of my edit, including my proper removal of the bullet from the full paragraph per WP:BULLET, my removal of Talbot's full name and rank that was pointless used to start the Film and Video game sections, and you did this again even after I pointed it out to you, which will be viewed by the rest of the editing community as tendentious editing.
3. Calling subheadings "Animation" is not "idiotic". It a common practice across comics-related articles, and has been since I've started editing here in 2005. You can see if you read them. Readers can discern the details about each work by reading it. We do not need to spoonfeed them every single detail in a heading, especially since the practice on Wikipedia is to keep heading names as simple as possible, as indicated by WP:SECTIONHEAD.
If you need other editors and administrators to inform you of this, and to inform you that you have now violated the WP:CIVILITY with your unnecessary "sad pathetic" comments, I'd be more than happy to refer them to you. Nightscream (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Fox News- Various 'Is this RS' Noticeboards and RfCs[edit]

Greetings and Salutations, I recently edited an article you had previously edited. In your comments you identified Fox News as not an RS. There have been a number of RS noticeboard topics and RfCs on this subject before. Please see:

As these discussions indicate, Fox News is considered a RS, despite the opinions of a vocal minority of editors, and that as it is already considered RS, any efforts to make it not RS would have to get significant consensus. As such, and because in another RfC it is recommended to back up People Magazine with another source on possibly contentious issues, I re included the Fox News ref you removed.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bahb the Illuminated: Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SecretAvengers23cover.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SecretAvengers23cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NeoBatfreak 05:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Allison Mack[edit]

I created Talk:Allison_Mack#Infobox/alleged_Clyne_marriage. I don't want an edit-war and I think it would be best if we took the discussion there rather than through edit-summaries.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Publix[edit]

Oh, man, I'm so used to the phrase "undue weight" around here that I honestly didn't think of that. :) Trivialist (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Jamie Chung[edit]

Quoted from my user page:

Hi. Thanks for adding mention of Jamie Chung's appearance in the film 1985. However, please do not add content to articles that isn't accompanied by inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, as with this addition of yours to Jamie Chung, since, as you know by now, this violates the site's policies, and makes the article less verifiable to readers. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
None of the other filmography entries have citations in the Jamie Chung article, and the 1985 appearance and character name are in IMDB, which is generally considered a reliable source. But at your request, I included citations for the appearance and character name (which are consistent with what I remember from seeing the film four days ago, which I know is original research, but also backs up recent revisions to reliable sources). I put them into comments, because citing IMDB is not customary in filmography lists.
I've also reinstated the Golden Space Needle Award, this time with a citation of the source.
I don't know whether this reply will generate a notification for you if I put it on my user page, so I put it onto both pages. — Steve98052 (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Steve98052: Steve, please read my message carefully. I was thanking you for the addition of 1985.
The uncited material you added, however, is indicated by the diff link I included, which ("this addition of yours to Jamie Chung.."), which shows the material in question. Thanks for re-adding it with a citation. :-) Nightscream (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Aha, I saw the thanks, but the rest of the message (and particularly the revert) colored my interpretation of the message overall. But now that I've read the thanks as it was intended, you're welcome. —Steve98052 (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CouplesTherapyLogo.jpg[edit]

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DrSivana.jpg[edit]

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Mary GrandPré[edit]

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.sarasotamagazine.com/articles/2003/11/1/marys-magic. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the some content had to be removed and some was paraphrased. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I am well-acquainted with copyright, and nothing in my edits violated it. The material I added was indeed paraphrased where appropriate, just as the material I add to Wikipedia always is. The only passages copied verbatim are called direct quotes, and do not have to be paraphrased, by definition. Such quotes are typically found in biographical works because they convey nuanced ideas and qualities that are not easily conveyed when paraphrased, which you will find when you read such works. Moreover, questions of copyright are not predicated on the mere presence of material copied verbatim, but on the amount of material in proportion to the size of the original work: The idea that the quotes I added, which comprise about 110 words (out of the approximately total 400 words I added to the article), from a Sarasota magazine article of 1,075 words, would be a valid copyright problem, is so specious, that it is barely worth giving serious thought. I suggest you read up on copyright a bit more, when you find the time. If you have any further questions on copyright, and what is and is not a violation, let me know. :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 21[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Comics artist, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Lloyd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SURANME listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:SURANME. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:SURANME redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Jamie Madrox[edit]

I wasn't sure if we were supposed to list the comment "In the 2018 miniseries Multiple Man" when describing this surviving clone of Jamie Madrox at the start of the new comic series. I had to mention what the M-Pox does to mutants on that page because of this side-effect of the Terrigen Mist following the "Secret Wars" storyline. I added a to the sentence because I thought it would only not be there if the page listed damages instead of damage. If the latter information that I told you is not how people say it, then I apologize for not knowing it. Did I leave anything out? --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rtkat3: Dude, you can't write for shit.
First of all, you're not "listing" it, since the paragraph is written as prose, and not a list.
Second, if you "didn't know" if we were "supposed" to mention it, then why delete it? And why omit mention of this from your edit summary, which merely mentions "additions" --- the opposite of a deletion? Why would you not mention it? If you felt you had a rationale to remove it, why not provide it in the edit summary? In my opinion, storylines and series need to be identified as such, and giving their year of publication in the text (as opposed to the year of every single issue cited, which I think would be overkill) provides an explanatory historical context for the reader.
Third, you did not mention what M-Pox did. You simply said, "it causes M-Pox on mutants", without explaining what "M-Pox" even WAS, let alone what it "does".
Last, you couldn't even be bothered to preview your message here on my talk page, or check it after you left it, because you fucked up the italics, and didn't even bother to fix it afterwards.
All of this illustrates that you are semi-literate, have a poor grasp of vocabulary, show poor judgment in composing material for explanatory clarity, are deceitful in your arguments, and just plain sloppy. You need to stop editing, pick up a book, a magazine, a newspaper, and start READING. And I mean LOTS of reading. Because you can't write if you don't first read to see how writers write, and right now, your writing skills are piss poor. Nightscream (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Dennis Cowan for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dennis Cowan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Cowan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Launchballer 17:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Bayonne High School Notable Alumni[edit]

Greg Aronowitz's notable works were already documented in the wikipedia page under his name (linked) and the cited works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rweicker (talkcontribs) 02:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rweicker:
First of all, if by "wikipedia page under his name (linked)" you mean to say his Wikipedia article, that's not the article we're talking about. We're talking about the Bayonne High School article, as indicated by the fact that you correctly chose that as the title of this discussion. That's the article to which you added his name.
Second, the issue is not notability. It's Verifiability, which requires most material be accompanied by inline citations of reliable, published secondary sources.
Lastly, I would point out that Aronowitz's article barely makes no mention of Bayonne High School. The one mention of Bayonne in the Infobox was uncited, and most of the material in the article is either uncited or poorly cited. IMDB, for example, which is cited twice is not an appropriate source, since it's user-generated, the citation at the end of the Lead section is to his own company's website, which is a primary, self-published source, and not a proper secondary source published by someone independent of Aronowitz, etc. That leaves just two sources that mention him. Hardly a clear-cut case of notability. Nightscream (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Use of bare tweet urls instead of full cites of reputable publications[edit]

Hi, Nightscream! Could you do me a favor? I appreciate your edits at 2018 Russia-United States summit, replacing Twitter as a reference with proper sourcing. And I understand your frustration that some people use tweets as a reference when perfectly good news sources are available - as well as the fact that none of the regulars at the article have already fixed it. (Admitting to guilt myself on that front.) But could you please not say things like "Idiotic!" in your edit summaries? Those Trump-related articles are highly emotionally charged for many people, and we have enough trouble maintaining civility and order without edit summaries like that. Just please keep it in mind next time. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nightscream:I’m the one who used tweets in the Russia summit article. They conveyed the full information described in my edits, as breaking news by qualified reporters, before the stories were published on news sites, providing timely information in an article that was a hot topic at the time. There was nothing inappropriate about using them, and the sources with which you replaced them did not elucidate further on what the edits stated. As far as the publication date not being shown, that’s due to which fields reFill picks up, or which fields Twitter chooses to expose, not due to my editing. Hope that allays your concerns. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Bullshit. WP:IRS requires us to rely on reliable publications, which is not predicated on the personhood of individuals. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source. (See WP:NOT for more on this). Wikipedia and its editors are not obligated to add information when it "breaks", especially if there are not reliable publications that can be cited to support it. (For that, there is Wikinews. I recommend you look that up.) When news breaks, news outlets report it immediately, on TV and on the Web. You are more than able to wait until such publications publish that info to add it to Wikipedia. Sloppily pasting the urls of tweets into articles, because "Oh, these are qualified news reporters", which is something the typical reader on Wikipedia may not be able to discern (not every reporter is a household name like Wolf Blitzer) without even bothering to add the publication info because you're too lazy to do so, and then blaming it on reFill or whatever else, is lazy, sloppy, contemptible editing that makes the reliability of the project less transparent to the reader. You had plenty of opportunity, if not when news was "breaking", then afterwards, to replace those embarrassing excuses for citations with reliable sources, and to add the proper publication info, but you didn't, because you prefer to engage in excuse-making for your laziness while editors like me who actually roll up their sleeves and do some actual legwork end up having to clean up your messes. You don't like being criticized for your laziness? The solution for this is simple: STOP EXHIBITING IT. Otherwise, keep your whininess off my talk page. You leave a mess for others to clean up, I'm gonna call you on it. Nightscream (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Nicky Wheeler-Nicholson for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nicky Wheeler-Nicholson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicky Wheeler-Nicholson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 1l2l3k (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Chesley Sullenberger[edit]

Since you reverted an attempted improvement, I'd appreciate your input on Talk:Chesley_Sullenberger. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Black Label (comics)[edit]

Hi,

I see you've made a few changes to this page. Why aren't press releases a good enough reference to verify information? I understand they can't be used for notability but the information from them can be trusted Matt14451 06:07, August 21, 2018‎

@Matt14451: Hi, Matt. The reason is the one I gave in my edit summary, which included a wikilink to the relevant policy.
Also, please don't forget to sign your talk page posts. Thanks. :-) 13:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Lake Norman[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Washuotaku. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Lake Norman have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks.

@Washuotaku: I don't see any edit of mine that has been undone. If you're referring to the passage on Trump, I didn't add that. (I did, however, change the citation to a better one.) Please check your edit history a bit more closely. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit on Robert Kirkman[edit]

Hey Nightscream. Could you help me understand what the purpose is of sorting Kirkman as an asterisk on Category:Invincible (comic)? I see two others there as well, but I don't understand why. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I put the asterisk there because I saw the other two there. Obviously, whoever did that desired that BLP subjects be sorted apart from fictional characters. I don't know if there's a consensus or MOS or whatever, but if you object to this sorting, then shouldn't all three be so arranged either way? I have no preference, I just wanted to make it consistent. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
(we can keep discussion here, together) No worries. I just didn't know what the rationale was, and was unaware of the fictional vs. non-fictional aspect of it. I've no idea if there's a consensus on that or not either. I've no preference on it either; I just saw an

List of Suicides[edit]

Hi, I take your point. I actually wasn't finished with the Santos-Dumont entry as I had to leave the computer for a bit. Also I'm no stranger to the List of suicides, adding several people over the years. Koplimek (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

WP.NOTBROKEN listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WP.NOTBROKEN. Since you had some involvement with the WP.NOTBROKEN redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Script (comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brad Anderson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

About Miles Morales[edit]

Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia and I wanted to know if you can put a protection to this page. I really like this page and I'm afraid that someone might ruin it. Thanks! Penguin7812 (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks :D Penguin7812 (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)