Jump to content

User talk:Nightscream/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Replaceable fair use File:Jeeja2008.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Jeeja2008.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hudson town representations

Hi Nightscream, I know we have been through all of this before, and I thought it was settled about the templates. However I have a major problem with your edits to the Bayonne article. Bayonne is represented by all three officials of the district, and your removal of the two representatives who happen to live in the Jersey City portion of the district has the appearance of racism. The people of Bayonne elected Cunningham and Mainor, and they belong in the Bayonne article. There is no "Bayonne" representative in the Assembly, there are two representatives of the entire 31st District. There is also one Senator who represents the district that Bayonne is part of. While I understand your objections to the inclusion of the entire Board of Freeholders in every town article, completeness requires that all of the representatives of the 31st District appear in the Bayonne article. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 02:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, none is as good as all. And just listing the district is fine with me, although so very un-Hudson County. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 03:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
A more comprehensive discussion of this issue is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey/Hudson County Task Force#Use of templates for federal, state and county representation and I hope we can reach a resolution that addresses Hudson County as part of all 21 counties statewide. Alansohn (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say this in the HCTF discussion, but felt it would be best handled directly. I am sorry Nightscream, but as an administrator, you should be completely aware that consensus can change. There is never any call for making a statement as you have made in the above noted discussion. I am aware of your position on this, and I still disagree, but you have no right to come into any conversation anywhere on WP and say "That's been decided." The discussion has been opened, and if you wish to participate in determining whether consensus is still the same as it was 16 months ago, please feel free to state your position, but do not attempt to stifle discussion that may not conform with your opinion. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 19:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that Alan was in any way "more right" than you. I merely wanted to say that it is probably time to revisit the decision, and your statements, along with your status as an admin, come across as opposing the entire idea that change is possible. Broad definitive statements like the ones you made ("We've already had this discussion" and "That's been decided") conflict with BRD and CCC. Alan did provide evidence in the fact that the templates are used in every other municipal article except those about the towns of Hudson County. Consider that 544 articles have included these templates all along, and 12 have not, when determining exactly what consensus may or may not be. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 20:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you please point out to me specifically where there is any conensus on the use of templates re: Hudson county articles, and where specifically it says it is inappropriate to edit articles (or sections) that might be affected by an ongoing discussion? Thanks Djflem (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting reading. I'll be more specific. Can you be more specific about the criteria you are using for the three recent edits you made, and how they correspond to the current PUBLISHED version of the Weehawken article? 62.195.2.137 (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I understand concept edit-warting, and appears were engaging in it when you made three reverts (forget the timing, it's not important) without either clarifying them to the party whose edits they were (mine, 2x) or on the talk page. Since you not have responded to my inquire above, I will post my request asking you to specify you interpretation and application to the Weehawken article there. Djflem (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to your claims made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey/Hudson County Task Force. As stated there, I encourage you to take the discussion to any venue where you will be willing to accept the consensus reached and to bring your allegations of policy violations to where ever you see fit so that neutral observers can confirm that I and other editors you disagree with can be properly cleared. Alansohn (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ferrigno

[1] Nice of you to inform me. Yes, {{reflist}} has certain features, but if an article uses {{reflist}} without any other parameters, it isn't using those features, and is visually and functionally identical to <references/> Therefore, there is no presentation reason to prefer one or the other. I prefer <references/> because it avoids the template overhead. It also might discourage editors from putting in two-column refs, which I object to on that article. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo credits...

For the Commons pull down at Category:Comics creator images (top of the page), would you prefere "Nightscream" or "Luigi Novi" in the "Photo by..." credit?

- J Greb (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"Comics creator images on Commons          [show]"
- J Greb (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BelleTerre.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BelleTerre.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. Courcelles 04:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Real" world/Junk sports, etc.

I don't even allow the mention of a physicist who is not notable when he has written a scholarly paper referenced in the article. "Dr. John Wells reports that the positron is a ...(ref with Wells name)" Gets changed to "A physicist has reported that....(ref with Wells name)" How is this any different from a reality show? Why should non-notables be mentioned ever in any article in an encyclopedia? We are not an almanac nor a tv guide nor People magazine nor a blog nor a .com site. Student7 (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that the mention of his name, for non-notable in the above case, is WP:SPAM. In other words, he could use the publicity, therefore he doesn't get it! Einstein could care less, and doesn't need it (and is notable). We can use him. Same principle with McDonald's fast food and Joe's Diner. Joe desperately needs the publicity. Therefore he can get a .com page. McDonalds could care less. So, if necessary, we can mention them.
If we can mention people who are non-notable, where are the barriers? Who hasn't appeared in some tv clip on regular television or YouTube? Notability needs to mean something. It can't just be a random word that is bandied about, meaning whatever the editor wants it to mean for some particular article. Student7 (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Templesmith

Okay, I weighed in on the Templesmith pics, although I had to acknowledge some COI conflict because I know him. Nice guy! An immediate family member is good friends with his girlfriend. Regardless of that, though, COI is irrelevant against the straightforward criterion that color is preferred over B&W. Thanks for asking me. Best regards - Doczilla STOMP! 22:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rafael Albuquerque

The article Rafael Albuquerque has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Mhiji 03:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Bill Maher, 2009 Richard Dawkins Award recipient

The Dawkins Award is given to an atheist, as per the AAI's requirements for receiving the award. I have modified this numerous times just to have it deleted. I am new to Wiki, but am sure that this is relevant to the section. Can you please advise. DobermanGuy (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance. DobermanGuy (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:IronLad.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:IronLad.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. Courcelles 03:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul the Octopus

Hello Nightscream, If you have any spare time I reckon you may want to look at this article and its talk page, just to see what I was talking to you about on Saturday. The article is much cleaner than it was back when it was new, but still, even now it's a bit of a mess. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC) If you can be bothered you may want to look at the archived discussions too. Invertzoo (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, whenever you have the time. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: The Movie

Sorry about the snarky edit summary. I've addressed the issue on the talk page and also edited the article to reflect the fact that part one was largely derived from the work of Acharya S, author of "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold". She also served as a consultant to the film. Mamalujo (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RealWorldLondonCast.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RealWorldLondonCast.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. Courcelles 03:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Geoff Roes

I was looking at this wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoff_Roes for Geoff Roes and noticed his list of races was removed. I tried to put it back but am now temp blocked from wiki for 'vandalism' even though I was the one that initially created the list and can confirm all of the details.

I have read that lists aren't allowed but then how would someone list their achievements such as this? Does wiki really expect it all to be typed out in 'story' format? I would think the point/key to Wikipedia would be to serve as a useful tool for information and a clear/concise list would be easier to read to me than scanning through text to see race results.

Please let me know if its a matter of citing sources or if lists just aren't allowed and what is the best way this information can be displayed.

And please remove the block on my IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aswistak (talk • contribs) 15:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Unprotection request

Please see [2]. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Roof on Pawn Stars

Inserted Charlie Roof's name, found on the credits of the show -- wondering why this was removed and replaced with "Charles"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobaddude (talk • contribs) 19:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! (Apollo Creed deletion discussion)

I just wanted to say thank you for fixing the form of my nomination. Quite sorry to be a bother; it's my first nomination. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

True, although at least he didn't just jump up and bite you, bite your d*mn hand off, then cut you down in your prime. (Oops... Closer, at least) Crisco 1492 15:36, 30 January 2011 (edit) (undo)

Real World Las Vegas

Hello can you assist me with including Adam Royer to the table for The Real World: Las Vegas (2011) I have listed references on the Adam Royer page including the news article appearing today. I am new to this to assistance would be appricated here is the link http://www.pressherald.com/life/from-portland-to-the-real-world_2011-02-04.html?searchterm=adam+royer

Thanks much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian M.S. Royer (talk • contribs) 00:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance is there anyway we can chat via email I am very interested in learning more about wiki and I have further questions as well as insights regarding Adam that I would like guidene on. Also can you change the Real World page to Adam Royer he will not be carrying Michael on the show as there is another cast member with the same name Ian M.S. Royer (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks!

Captain America: The First Avenger

I revert one of your good faith edits at Captain America: The First Avenger. I felt it was important to seperate these items from the rest of marketing beacuse while they do promote the film they are seperate works and if notablity is meet could become seperate articles as well. If you feel my actions were inappropiate feel free to revert them. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

One-Above-All

Please, could you possibly be willing to add your input on the One-Above-All deletion discussion? A user, by the name of MBelgrano, is trying to delete the article, and now its image, apparently mainly because he is upset that no one supported his proposal to merge the article with Fictional portrayals of God. I have myself made many points on the article, such as comparing it with other comic portrayal of a Supreme Being, but Belgrano avoids addressing many points I have made, ignores my direct pleas for him to possibly consider or at least compromise, compares the One-Above-All with Batman and the Ultimate version of George W. Bush, and mentions irrelevant issues to the article, such as atheism.

This user seems to have nominated many articles for deletion in the past, and what bothers me the most is that, from his own comments, he plans on removing the article now because he feels personally slighted that other users restored much of the content he removed some time ago, and that some apparently disagreed with his choice to have the article merged. Thus, while the article may indeed contain some original research, he is using that as more of an excuse to attempt to justify this than as an actual reason. He does it more to satisfy himself rather than as an effort to help improve Wikipedia. Nightscream, I really am trying to be as unbiased as possible, but the problem is, I personally don't think this user himself is, no matter how many policies of Wikipedia he has cited. I have tried to compromise with him directly, proposing perhaps other options to address his issues, but as it has been almost a week and he has yet to respond, I don't think that will work...

The article was made in 2006, and has lasted to this day, with overall hundreds of users having edited it. And now, because of a single user's tag, it is about to be permanently deleted. Not a single other person has chosen to have this article deleted and every day, according to the logs, hundreds still view it. And, what is more, many articles and templates link to it; even other language Wikipedias have this article. Please at least consider offering your own input on this, my friend. Aidoflight (User talk:Aidoflight)

Yes, I do acknowledge that there is considerable original research in the article, but there is a Supreme Being/Creator in Marvel Comics. Deleting this article would give the exact opposite message to everyone. Even the Handbooks, which are in truth primary sources, but nevertheless more reliable than the opinion of a user who focuses mainly on Argentina articles, have mentioned this being by its exact name in three separate profiles. And look at Belgrano's arguments: How much of it is based off of his own "original research"? Look at the Presence: The Voice, the Source, the Hand, have they all been proven to be the Presence? And why is the Preacher "God" even mentioned on the page? Just remember that if the article is indeed deleted, as Belgrano seems bent on doing, despite my efforts and pleas for possible compromise, it is very unlikely for it to be ever again restored. Aidoflight (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Nightscream. I am sorry to disturb you, but I would have your aid and advice in this. The article One-Above-All has now been deleted. While I do agree that there have been strong arguments made for its deletion, nevertheless, the administrator who chose to delete it very suddenly did so, with the discussion itself not even finished and consensus not yet reached. Surely the decision of a single sysop cannot in itself decide the fate of an entire article, especially one that has existed for five years? He did not even participate in the discussion at all until choosing to delete it without consulting with anyone else, even though you and another administratoron the discussion did not support its deletion.

I think the discussion should be allowed to continue, with the article restored until the final consensus. There are countless administrators on Wikipedia, and, yet, despite their tools, they should not deem themselves "superior" to normal users, at least not on controversial issues such as these. In fact, this was the last comment made on the discussion, in response to my own argument: "Many people feel that "we could probably justify deleting most of the comic articles" on Wikipedia. The only reason they are not deleted is a vocal fan base that votes heavily in AfDs." It is true, the point this administrator has mentioned is valid, but in all fairness, no one had even a chance to discuss this or to offer a counter-argument in the article's defense. Thus, I truly think that it was not reasonable to have thus deleted the article. Please, is it possible for you to restore it, at least for now? Aidoflight 23:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I truly am sorry if you had the wrong impression about me from my comments or what other users may or may not have said about me. If that is the case, and if my own comments sounded too accusatory or biased, I ask for your pardon. And yet, if two administrators, along with various other editors, did oppose the deletion, what gives a single administrator the right to all of a sudden delete it? Because I personally thought that the deletion of an article was supposed to be from ultimate consensus, not the decision of a single sysop, or the number of "Delete" votes. You yourself did propose a provisional keep, and I do thank you for that. I in all honesty truly did not believe that the article would merit something like a deletion, and I do with all respect still disagree with that view. I truly did try my utmost best to provide a strong defense for the article...but, clearly, it seems my own arguments were simply not strong enough. Anyway, I do thank you for your own input, and for your response, Nightscream. You have earned my respect - from now on, as I work on Wikipedia, I will try to earn yours. Aidoflight (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, but in that case...

Hi, Night. While I personally find the Spider-Man/Fantastic Four item newsy, I'll certainly accede to the judgment of another experienced editor like yourself.

One suggestion: AP stories on Google and Yahoo go away quickly, and bots seem to prevent them from being archived. In order to prevent link rot, you might want to find that same AP story at the ABC News, CBS News or CNN sites, which often run AP stories and can be archived. As always, good working with you! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nightscream. You have new messages at Ilyushka88's talk page.
Message added 16:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ilyushka ☃Talk!Contribs 16:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Lord Acton article

Hello. I was just looking at the Lord Acton article and comparing it with the Britannica 1911 version. Our article is about 90% verbatim from the older EB. My question is: are the "citation needed" tags necessary if our text is from the old Britannica? Thanks. --Kenatipo speak! 06:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Nightscream. Can you look at the bottom of user talk:Moonriddengirl? She thinks the article is OK vis-a-vis copyright. I will add refs in place of the cite needed tags. Thanks. --Kenatipo speak! 18:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Kelly Osbourne Edit

Hi Nightscream, I recently got a message from you about an edit to a Kelly Clarkson page. This rather worried me, because I haven't ever been to that page! Is it possible that someone else is using my IP address? If so, what can I do to prevent them doing so in future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.31.57 (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ray Comfort

Hello Nightscream, I am Personal Assistant to Ray Comfort, whose "biography of a living person" is semi-blocked. Since Ray is an evangelist, author of more than 70 books and openly challenges Atheists in his blog, you can imagine he has a lot of enemies. People that would be happy to discredit him or create a false image. Today, I saw a few changes that were accepted. One of them, was the display of Ray's salary. I don't think this should be public. I saw you moderated the correction and deleted it. THANK YOU.

The article also claims that Ray has no theological training. It isn't true: he did seven years local church training, before becoming an ordained minister in 1978. Since then he has been invited to speak in more than 1,000 churches across the world from almost every denomination. In 1989, he was invited to be on Southern California-based Calvary Chapel pastoral staff.

Even if I am his PA, i cannot make changes since my account is not "established". Can you please help me out to make a couple of changes or better, to have my account "established" so I can jump in and change whenever his Bio is changed with bad intentions? Thank you. Brambmanu (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Beth Sotelo‎‎ AFD

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

Short and to the point here: Aside from the Comics Project talk page you are canvasing. Posting to the Project talk page, the Bio Project talk, the Creators workgroup, and/or the Arts & Entertainment taskforce are fine - wide dissemination - are fine. Poking individual editors isn't. - J Greb (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Amber Benson

In an effort to prevent our conflict over the photograph in this article from becoming an edit war, something I'm sure we both do not want to happen, I've asked for the opinions of others on the article's talk page. Please do not make any changes to the article involving the dispusted photo until we have some additional input and, hopefully, a consensus. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you be interested in something like this as a compromise? Not as tight as my original crop, shows more of the circumstances, but still cropped tightly enough that Benson would show up at a reasonable display size? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Gem Spa

Thanks very much for fixing the image there, removing the blue tint, I appreciate it, especially considering that we've been in conflict recently -- very decent of you. I believe the tint is an artifact of the cheap camera I use under certain lighting conditions. Would you be willing to tell me how you corrected it, so that I can do so in the future, if needs be? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

McDonald's

Hey!

I am contacting you on behalf of McDonald’s as I work on their communications team. I've noticed that you've made edits recently to the McDonald's page. First off, I wanted to thank you for the fantastic work you’ve done in keeping the McDonald’s Wikipedia page up to date and accurate. The page is very well written, shows your professionalism and exemplifies the credibility in using Wikipedia to learn about McDonald’s!

Second, while you seem to have things under control, I wanted to reach out to you to see if there’s any information or materials that we can provide you with to further enhance the page. For example, as McDonald’s continues to add new menu items and expand the number of operating restaurants around the world, we have a number of new facts and figures (nutritional information on products, number of operating stores worldwide, etc.) that you might find beneficial. Additionally, we’ve established a presence in the social media world on Facebook and Twitter that we’re increasingly relying on to interact with our customers. Whatever the case may be, please use me as a resource.

I look forward to hearing from you and thanks again! Egerstea (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Stephen King's 11/22/63 & Wind Through the Keyhole

You took out the info regarding King's comments in Marvel Spotlight as unsourced, as well as comments by his assistant on his official forum. I disagree. Firstly, I'm simply not sure how to properly source a physical publication like Marvel Spotlight. There weren't any links I could find for it with the quote online. Secondly, the comment from King's assistant on Stephen King's official message board should be counted as a reliable source, since it's coming from King's own office. Finally, I don't think it's correct to simply paste the official synopsis in its entirety; wouldn't that constitute a copyright violation? Also, as far as The Wind Through the Keyhole, once again you removed pertinent historical information that was cited. Although it was via what you termed a "fan site", in reality it is not. Liljas Library has been for over a decade one of the primary sources for news about Stephen King, the man that runs the site has published a book about King. Plus, most of the news that is posted there, and that's used in the article, is real info as it's all properly sourced to either King's official website or people, like Bev Vincent, that are very close to King. So I'm hoping you could perhaps restore my previous versions and maybe tweak them a little so they're more proper, but I feel they were more informative than they currently are. Personally, I believe it's always better to improve than to delete. Jmj713 (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Scheutzen Park

Hey Nightscream,

I was not able to scan the book; I have to find a big scanner to properly do that. I'm thinking of maybe heading to the city to see if they have one in the library. If you want it back, let me know.

Regarding the main picture, I don't feel strongly either way other than I felt that the parks heyday was from that era (what I wish to find is a picture of the range or something). - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel like what is there today as Scheutzen Park, is just the remnants and portion of what it was; it's virtually grass and a lot at this point. I see the banquet hall and Columbia Park as intruders of the historical Scheutzen Park. However, most places that I've seen like this do show modern day picture (if possible) first, and then a historical one in the history section; this article just isn't long enough. I have found one more picture which I think is great, here. Now I prefer that on top. That was my reasoning, but it's no big deal; might just mean that the article needs to be expanded more. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

What we really need to do is climb on top of the Sears building to get a picture of Scheutzen, Fritz and Columbia Park:)

That would be awesome to get a picture from up there; in the mean time, whichever image you prefer to appear on top feel free to change. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Virgin Media Advertising Campaign

Nightscream. Hi, could you please explain to me how the recent reference that I added to the popular culture section of the "Starman" page is not acceptable when it clearly states the use of the music and it's origins in the comment section of the citation; a page that is moderated and edited by VirginMedia. My ammendment was removed twice, though I see no distinction between it and MaryAnn Johansen's brief comments on Film.com, the Youtube entry or the trivia entries on imdb, all of which have been accepted as viable citations. I think the VirginMedia usage is a valuable reference to add to the Starman page as it shows the continued appeal of the musical score and the immediate recognition it achieved by viewers, myself included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.35.237 (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, there is a media link on the Advertfan website to the full and complete TV advertisement to support the listing of the campaign production crew. Why your browser will not show it is not within my scope to know.
Thankyou for the reply... But no, I don't think I will bother creating a username or a permanent login as I no longer believe there is any point in ordinary people trying to add information to Wikipedia. This is, I believe, just the second time that I have tried to add information to Wikipedia and the second time that it has been refused.. Both times I have tried to add information that has been seen on British national television by literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of people from peak viewing times and reported on numerous websites, newspaper and magazine articles and mentioned on radio shows (as this DDB piece has been). I can only come to the conclusion that the difficulty in having citations accepted by people other than registered editors is down to a knee-jerk reaction at the bad reputation for accuracy that Wikipedia has been trying to shake off for years. Guidelines say that "Paris is the capital of France" is acceptable because everyone 'knows' it. One only has to watch the VirginMedia advert to 'know' as much as the hundreds of thousands of British people who have seen it, as oppposed to the trivia entries on imdb about Starman, (a website that guidelines specifically mention by name as a site that should not be considered as reliable, but are accepted on the Starman page) which are unverifiable to any casual reader. Or indeed, even the Youtube citation !! Hence, there appears to be no point in trying to add to the knowledge base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.35.237 (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Linda Hamilton

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edit to Linda Hamilton, as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edit had to be partially reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept unsourced material or original research. This includes material lacking cited sources, or obtained through personal knowledge or unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Wikipedia requires that all material added to articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable sources, and while the divorce settlement figure was indeed supported by the source cited at the end of the passage, the rest of the material you added was not. If you have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

HI nightscream. Here is the source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/14/lkl.01.html . The $50 mill was already sourced in the article. If you don't like the foxnews sources forbes also has an article about the settlement.Thank You. 69.140.66.37 (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Robert Kirkman birthdate

Hi! Sorry I skimped on the details... Please see Talk:Robert Kirkman for a more thorough explanation of why I think the date is correct. Cheers, Wikkitywack (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: the Movie edits

Thank you for the welcome to wikipedia, the addition of the source guide while mentioning that it had to do something with the 2010 update is a concern. On the film maker's website http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/qa.html , in the fifth text section from the bottom, the film maker says what changed in the 2010. I agree with you that that it is probably incorrect to say that the 2010 update had to do with the source guide because there is no way to really prove their relation. Knowing this, would it be important to maybe mention that there is an update in existence in the first paragraph and that the mention says everything that the film maker said changed assuming that the film maker is a reliable resource? Thank you for the feedback, I am new to wikipedia and I am still learning the ropes and the fine print. Psychedelic Yogi (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Real World: Las Vegas (2011)

The only primary source for this is MTV's website, which is the official site for the show. She's not listed there, and shouldn't be listed here. A forum post is hardly a legitimate source. That's like suggesting we should reference realitysteve.com on articles about The Bachelor. - Erroneuz1 (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm familiar with it, and a web forum post isn't valid in any way. Again, per your example, RealitySteve has been correct in regards to information for the Bachelor for many years now, but that wouldn't be right to use as a source at all. Same thing here.. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess we both interpret "Internet forum postings...are largely not acceptable" differently. You take a more liberal approach. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

thisis my source for deleting that college piece, I think it's pretty good ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LSUniverse (talk • contribs) 05:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms vs. criticism in titles

Editor Marcus has again requested a move at Talk:Criticisms of socialism#Requested move 2, despite the failure of the 10 December 2010 to 21 January 2011 attempted move. I am notifying you as you were a commenter in the original discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

My talk page

There was actually no reason for you to "echo" your "colleague" on my talk page. I'd like to first point out that we are all colleagues on this site. Some have just posted longer than others. More importantly, your addition was overindulgent as if trying to gain strength by numbers. I completely understood MarnetteD's post on my page. I also explained to him that it was an error. I have absolutely no reason or any desire to "sockpocket" a login.

Why don't you keep abreast of all the rules yourself? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers)

Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". If a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account.

What was the point of your addition after MarnetteD's post? 2obessed (talk) 04:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)2obessed

Response:
I chose to leave a message of my own on your talk page in order to both address the specific diffs and to address the issue of sockpuppetry, which MarnetteD had not done in his/her message, which is not only my perogative as an editor, but one of my duties as an administrator, as MarnetteD is not one himself/herself. This has nothing to do with "gaining strength by numbers" or with the notion that you are somehow not capable of being a colleague yourself, as I never said nor implied either of these ideas. If I observe an editor repeatedly violate the site's guidelines or policies, those same guidelines are the only thing I need to take administrative action, so I don't need "numbers" to do so.
"Sockpuppet" and "meatpuppet" are not "disparaging names". They're the accepted terms for editors who attempt to use multiple accounts in order to violate the site's rules. If one observes this activity, then rightfully pointing it out does not constitute "biting the newcomers". Calling a spade a spade is not biting a newcomer if the description of the behavior is accurate. (Though if you disagree, perhaps you'd like to work to have the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy page deleted because it calls sock puppets sock puppets?) The only relevant point, therefore, is whether you engaged in the behavior in question: You were observed removing sourced content from the Matt Stone article not once, but at least twice, without any valid policy-based rationale, but merely a personal aesthetic or philosophical bias against personal information in biographical articles that is not reflected by accepted practices among the Wikipedia community, and even attempted to claim that someone "requested" that you do this, without offering any further elaboration on this. You also ignored the edit summaries of other editors who pointed out that this was inappropriate when they reverted these deletions, as well as the messages that were left on your talk page regarding this. A new account was created with the apparent purpose of making just one edit to date, which was to blank the same content you had. That's sockpuppetry. Therefore, placing a warning on your page regarding this was entirely legitimate, and does not constitute "name calling". The rationales you provided on the article talk page and MarnetteD's talk page do not justify your edits, as MarnetteD pointed out. But if you feel you've been mistreated, then feel free to report my messages to the Administrator Noticeboard. Nightscream 06:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Nightscream. Just wanted to drop a note of thanks for the time that you took trying to explain things to the "newbie/editor of long standing/admin" that was deleting info on the Matt Stone article a couple of days ago. I notice that you joined WikiP just a few weeks before I did in Mar of 05 so I'm sure that you've dealt with this kind of editor before. They always wind up taking time away from the kind of editing that we would like to do. Again I appreciate the time and effort that you put in on this. Happy belated WikiBirthday and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Actually I am male. The Arnette is French by way of Ireland and comes from my grandfather on my mothers side. It is a fun coincidence to bump into someone who has been here as since 05. Take care and have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Article copy

Your moving content from I-35W Mississippi River bridge to redirect I-35W Mississippi River Bridge wasn't good. Doing this would lose the edit history of the article. If it should be moved you need to make a request for this. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've moved a number of articles and thought I did it correctly. How is moving done properly without losing the edit history? Nightscream (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a down arrow on the upper right with a "move" menu option, goes to [3], and moves are allowed sometimes, but some rule disables a move due to too many edits/editors, after which case you have to request a move, and leave a time for comments by other users. If it is disabled think you might just start with a talk page section "== request move==" and explain the request and see if others agree. I don't know what the proper convention is for upper/lower case in article titles. Goodluck! Tom Ruen (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Why secondary source

Would you please comment at WT:Verifiability#Why secondary source? as to why you think a reliable secondary source is necessary to demonstrate that a particular social networking page belongs to a particular person, and why a reliable primary source is unsuitable for this purpose? Jc3s5h (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Angel Medina (artist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Angel Medina (artist) 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/Angel Medina (artist) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Gigs (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Respond

Hi, I did not add a My space source, please check that revision you linked. Thank you Wrestling0101 (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This confirms http://www.myspace.com/apriljeanettem is her my space http://superluchas.net/2010/09/02/aj-lee-la-favorita-para-ganar-la-tercera-temporada-de-nxt-%C2%BFque-opinara-aj-styles/ so the source with her my space saying in the photo album that she is in the Mendez family was correct Wrestling0101 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping Wrestling0101 (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Did i Put the My space proof source (Superluchas) in the right spot? Does it go after the actual My Space source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrestling0101 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ariel Olivetti

American is for a whole continent, not only a country. I'm Argentinian, and I'm tired of having that discussion with native english speakers. The proper adjective is U.S. American, and i'm not the source of that rule. The people from Canada, USA, Argentina, and Brazil are all American. It's like calling Borges "An American writer", it's not specific. (Erechel)(talk) 21:52, 11 April 2011

Donald Trump

Thank you for your edits to The Donald. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: The Movie

Hi!
Thank you very much for helping me! :)
"Also, terms should not be wikilinked more than once per section." - what does it mean? Sorry for not understanding what you wanted to say... You mean that for example Acharya S should not be linked everytime it is encountered in the same section (for section you mean the whole "Scholarly responses" section?)?

I can't add my personal viewpoints and that's ok. "Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, is a nearly 600 page book full of the kind of evidence that Dr. Forbes claims doesn't exist." - this is not my viewpoint or comment, this excerpt is present on the website that i've put in the footnote. Can't i write it? Otherwise tell me how to include it, it contains (the link in the footnote) the response, evidence which Dr. Forbes claims doesn't exist.

You also deleted all of my other addings at the bottom of the "Scholarly responses" section. Why? Maybe i was adding those infos in a wrong way, not conforming to the guidelines and rules of wikipedia.
So, now i'll write you here what i'd like to add and why. And you tell me if and how can i add these things. Thank you, your help is greatly appreciated!!!

From the article:
Forbes states that there is no evidence in Egyptian sources that Horus' mother Isis was a virgin [...]
So i'd like to add an excerpt from the book Christ in Egypt where is the response to that claim that is wrong. This is the excerpt:

The Pyramid Texts speak of the great virgin (Hwn.t wr.t) three times (682c, 728a, 2002a, cf. 809c) [...]
In a text in the Abydos Temple of Seti I, Isis herself declares: "I am the great virgin".
- Christ in Egypt, page 152
And i put as a footnote the book Christ in Egypt. So, please tell me how can i include this little excerpt from the book?

Can i add this information? -> The Pyramid Texts are 4,400 years old. linking Pyramid Texts to its wiki page.

Another response of Acharya S to Dr. Forbes is about the sun/son issue. And i want to write it like this: Acharya addressed the sun/son issue. Obviously with its appropriate footnote with link to the response by Acharya S.

And can i include also this: Acharya S/Murdock currently has several books with over 2,100 pages of text, including over 5,700 footnotes/citations to primary sources and the works of highly credentialed authorities from a wide variety of relevant fields, adding up to over 1,600 bibliographical sources. Her books also contain over 300 illustrations. It's information, facts, no opinions.

For now help me with these things. Thank you again!!!

--Mtx1 (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As for the material in the book Christ in Egypt, does Murdock specifically mention Forbes' criticism when discussing the issue of Isis' virginity? No, she doesn't mention Forbes. If she doesn't mention Forbes it can't be inserted in the article? The fact is that Forbes states: "there is no evidence in Egyptian sources that Horus' mother Isis was a virgin". And in the book of Acharya S, supported by evidence and sources, is stated the contrary.

Why did you delete this External link: Skeptic Mangles Zeitgeist (and Religious History) [url:http://stellarhousepublishing.com/skeptic-zeitgeist.html] If because it is already mentioned in the article, also another external link (not mine) has te be deleted. And, from what i understood, in the external links i can't put links to blogs, forums and so on. Why then there actually is one link to blog?

Grazie per l'aiuto!!! ;) (Do you speak italian?)--Mtx1 (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Capisco, va bene. :) Do you have parents, links in Italy?

Well, this one is linked to a blog: Zeitgeist Debunked with guest Tim Callahan [url:http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/2010/03/episode-63-zeitgeist-debunked.html]--Mtx1 (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool, good to know. :) Well, i actually live in Italy. But i'm not Italian, i'm from Russia. I've been living here for 13 years. I'm here because my father, doctor of sciences, nuclear physicist, was invited in Italy. Nice to be acquainted with you :)
You didn't respond to everything i wrote. I'll post it again below. In case you are/were busy SORRY for posting it again...
As for the material in the book Christ in Egypt, does Murdock specifically mention Forbes' criticism when discussing the issue of Isis' virginity? No, she doesn't mention Forbes. If she doesn't mention Forbes it can't be inserted in the article? The fact is that Forbes states: "there is no evidence in Egyptian sources that Horus' mother Isis was a virgin". And in the book of Acharya S, supported by evidence and sources, is stated the contrary.
Why did you delete this External link: Skeptic Mangles Zeitgeist (and Religious History) [url:http://stellarhousepublishing.com/skeptic-zeitgeist.html] If because it is already mentioned in the article, also another external link (not mine) has te be deleted.:--Mtx1 (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Grazie mille! Great response, thanx for explanation. ;)
Ok, so now waiting the answer for the other thing i've asked you about the External Link :) --Mtx1 (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, i'm agree with that. So you have to remove also another link from external links i suppose, not mine, not put by me. This one: Skeptic: The Greatest Story Ever Garbled by Tim Callahan [url: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-02-25#feature]. It is already present in the footnotes, footnote 20. And also another link, this one: Interview with ancient historian Dr Chris Forbes at Centre for Public Christianity [url: http://www.publicchristianity.com/Videos/zeitgeist.html], footnote 29 --Mtx1 (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Meetups in NYC

Hi, I have been to two - one at Columbia a year ago, and one this winter at NYU. Coincidentally, my new partner is defending his Ed.D. dissertation next Thursday at CUTC and teaches nursing at NYU. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC on Sat April 23 starts at 5:00 pm. See you there!--Pharos (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

On the significance of indentation

Please see Wikipedia:Indentation. Cool Hand Luke 14:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

See example 3. Note also that we've wandered far off subject, and that article talk pages are for discussion related to the article. Cool Hand Luke 14:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
As for never observing a different convention, please see any forum with a significant volume of comments. Go to WP:ANI and pick any heading with many comments. You will note that chronological order is not followed except within the same indentation level—the comments are made sensible and responsive toward each other by their indentation level. Cool Hand Luke 14:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not pretend I am not a part of this disagreement, but it is now clear that it doesn't belong on the talk page of an article. Cool Hand Luke 14:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the conversation here, so that no one will be influenced by my perverse ways. I consider the matter closed. Cool Hand Luke 14:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk page meta-commentary

Cool Hand Luke, please stop inserting new messages in between old ones, and out of chronological order, as it screws up the flow of the conversation. The fact that my message above that starts with "No, because..." was made in response to DenningLJ is made to look like it's made in response to your new post. Please put new messages at the bottom of the thread. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I was not responding to "No, because," I was responding to your post above, and the indent level indicated I was not responding to DenningLJ's comment. You were clearly able to figure it out. Don't move my comments. Thanks. If you don't like it, you can move your comment up, indented so as to show you were responding to DenningLJ, and that my comment was responding to yours of 05:24, 7 April 2011. Cool Hand Luke 03:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you weren't responding to "No, because", that was the last message in the thread before you posted, so that's the one you follow. No one uses indent to indicate of who they're talking to. If you want to address a specific person, you can just address them by name, or quote them before providing your response. Sticking your responses in between others instead of putting them at the bottom is confusing. The fact remains that my message above that starts with "No, because" was made in direct response to the post by DenningLJ above it. I was the first to respond to him, and that's where that message of mine belongs.

As far as not moving your posts, consider this: Which post is being moved is a matter of perspective. I don't have to move your post. I can just move my own back to where it was, right after DenningLJ's, where it belongs, and that's what I have just done. Are you going to tell me that I can't move my own post? Please stop being tendentious, and observe a proper chronological order for the discussion. Nightscream (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Users do use indent level to indicate who they're talking to. Take a look at any board with lots of posting activity. Take WP:ANI (please). You will note that the indent level indicate threads, and that strictly chronological commenting had never been a convention of this site. Cool Hand Luke 14:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Indent levels do not indicate threads, and chronological commenting has always been the standard on this site. In the six years I've been on this site, I've never observed the opposite to be the case, particularly the former point. The bottom line is, you have no business placing a message in between an earlier one and the subsequent one I made directly after it in response to it. This is disruptive, counterintuitive, and can more easily lead to confusion. Nightscream (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your message on my talk page to "Please see Wikipedia:Indentation", I refer you to the following statements on that page:

A reply should be placed beneath the original comment. The reply should be indented.
If two replies are made to one specific comment, they should be at the same level of indentation with the later reply at the bottom.
A response to a reply should be placed below that reply, but above all later replies.
A new comment or sub-thread that is being added after a number of replies should go at the bottom. Do not add a new comment or sub-thread where it will separate an earlier comment from its replies.

At the bottom. Not inserted in between the first statement and the first reply to it. So the page you point to supports my position, not yours. The closest it comes to saying anything similar to what you said is when it says that two separate responses to a comment can be at the same level of indentation, which is not quite the same thing as saying that indentation "indicates threads", since the entire discussion is a "thread", and this does not bear upon inserting new posts in between two prior ones. Nightscream (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Zeitgeist? I posted on your talk page because this is no longer remotely about the article, why are you continuing to quarrel here? Cool Hand Luke 14:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

For the same reason you have. This is where the discussion diverged from that one, and you and I both continued it here. Since you expressed a number of ideas here where others could see them and possibly be influenced by them, responding them in the same place was logical. It takes two to "quarrel", and you certainly responded to my points about indenting here yourself, didn't you? Please do not pretend that you're not a part of this disagreement. Nightscream (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Last request

Would you mind adding to the indentation level of your comment so it's clear that I was not responding to that comment? Cool Hand Luke 14:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Trey Parker marriage info

Hi again N. I just wanted to check on your recent edit to TP's infobox. His marriage has two sources in the "Personal life" section and the CNN interview mentions the Emma S by name. I do agree that determining the years is guesswork and should not be there. As you take such good care of both Matt and Trey's article I would certainly defer to your opinion of what should and shouldn't be there but I did want to check on your interpretation of things so that I can be ready should any of our pesky IP's show up. Cheers and have a great Sunday. MarnetteD | Talk 22:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. The first time I looked at the CNN article I had to read it through twice to find the info about the marriage. Thanks for taking the time to reply and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Cebulski

Hiya, M. Night Screamalan. Personally, I'd say the one without the flash, File:4.14.11CBCebulskiByLuigiNovi2.jpg. The one with flash creates some very harsh shadows and burn-outs. You might want to lighten the flash-less one in Photoshop just a tad. Hope this helps! --Tenebrae (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah. In that case, the one with the flash. In Photoshop, go to Adjustments > Brightness/Contrast. You can set each to 1/100th of a degree, so it's very precise. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thunderbolt Ross

Hey there. Well, Red Hulk punched The Hood, and it pretty much destroyed his face. By that, what I meant was that one of Hood's eyes swelled completely shut, the other was disfigured, his nose was smashed, his mouth was cut open etc, for all intents and purposes, the face was wrecked. RobbieNewton (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely sure, here is the panel - http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/2919/avengers12oroboroscps02.jpg RobbieNewton (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:XFactorV3-202Cov.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:XFactorV3-202Cov.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 in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Jamesrandi9999

Was it really necessary to edit my comment there? The editor had been indef'ed before my last comment on that page and I had already given him a (low level) warning for the edit on James Randi - had I not used Twinkle (which doesn't have a preview), I probably wouldn't even have left that second comment. In this case, I don't care too much as I don't think this account will be re-opened, but in the future if you think something's wrong with my comments, please ask me to fix/change them rather than doing it yourself. Thanks, --Six words (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Celeste (pornographic actress)

The article Celeste (pornographic actress) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Three sources: a directory, a directory and... a directory. Zero biographical sources, zero biographical information, zero evidence of mainstream (i.e. reliable) coverage.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wiki reliability

Hi, I saw that you edit the reliability section on the Wikipedia article. That should eventually turn into an article and have a Main.

How about setting the goal of making Wikipedia "the best encyclopedia" in the 2nd ten years? I started Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability because there was no project for that. The Wikipedia reliability article will eventually be part of that project. Want to join the project? History2007 (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, great. Could you please add your name to the list of participants so the projects starts to gain some momentum by having users who endorse it? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Celeste (pornographic actress) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Celeste (pornographic actress) 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/Celeste (pornographic actress) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You were quicker

Good work on getting to the question that the IP posted just now on Trey Parker's talk page. I was looking at the refs to try and give them an answer and, by the time I was done, found that you had already taken care of things and fixed the ref in the article space. You missed a chance at a zinger though. To their question "am I missing something" you could have replied "Yes your signature to go with your posting" :-) I hope that you have a good weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 17:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. The joke works better between longtime editors like us. On another note I don't know if you saw the kerfuffle that went on yesterday on the Matt Stone article. I was distressed at the actions that I had to take in pushing and/or violating 3rr but I felt that CatholicW's continued attempts to alter Stone's words as stated in the interview linked to was a violation of BLP guidelines, Since you had mentioned this previously on her talk page I tried to explain further how what she was doing was a problem. I may not have been diplomatic enough. When things get going that fast I find it hard to do all that might be required. If I deserve a trout slap - or worse - I will take it in good grace. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 18:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Oops I forgot to mention that I am not averse to mentions of his changing stance on religion over the years it is just that specific statement should not have been altered to say something that it didn't. MarnetteD | Talk 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE READ: Notice of Reverting of Last Edit; Major Response Requested

Hey there,

I wanted to let you know that you last deleted the crucial information in America's Next Great Restaurant article. Additionally, I have put such information about this on the article's talk page, yet you have failed to read them. The sources where I was originally writing the article are coming in as I speak. I initially put a saying about the preemption in the Pacific Time Zone, but I had to wait due to a minor editing problem. However, you wrecked my plans by reverting them before I tried to add references to where I got those information, which are considered invaild after I have verified them through several sources. Now I am forced to put those references on your page until you have vailidated my verified sources (those just coming in). I am not sure why you have reverted this, which in my reason, is due to some confusion in the article herein.

IMPORTANT NOTES: If you wish to respond, please read my notice page (do NOT click on my talk page) before you do so, as I am very strict on postings. The references below are from various sources after you deleted those crucial information that I posted up, but because of editing problems, I was unable to post them until just now. Please let me know immediately if any of those references are valid or not (please use reference numbers in your response). None of those below are spam.

Also, I have confirmed that the show has released information about this show. You can view it here.

I hope those references will convince you, but I will leave the decisions up to you. CHAK 001 (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

File:10.1.10HumanCentipedeByLuigiNovi.jpg

Hi there, thanks for uploading this great picture of the actors from The Human Centipede (Full Sequence), a cropped version of the picture is on the article and has really helped to improve the piece.

The article is currently nominated to become a Featured Article and I am making changes to the article as requested in order to fulfil the requirements of a Featured Article. However, one concern that has been raised is that of the photo credit. I've been told that having a credit on a photo in this fashion might not fit with the established guidelines for a featured wikipedia article, and therefore I'm probably going to have to remove the photo from the article to ensure the article becomes FA.

Therefore, I'm writing to ask that you might remove the requirement from this photo so that it can remain on the article. You would still have the credit on the filename and description page attributions, and the picture would probably receive a great deal more attention from being on a featured article.

I hope you will consider this request, the article certainly benefits from this picture.

regards Coolug (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Since the main WikiProject Comics Noticeboard has not been significantly updated since 2009, and since the 2011 merger/move noticeboard is seldom used, I'm asking a few Project members to spread the word that this page exists and that there is a current merge proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice board/Requested moves/2011. Thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:173.12.50.13

Hello. Sorry to disturb you, but can you reblock 173.12.50.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). It's due to the same old vandalism, putting dubious sci-fi references on Sanrio articles. I've reported him to WP:AIV, but it is currently unactioned. Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 01:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Soul Daddy

ANGR Holdings and Soul Daddy (in effect a division of ANGR Holdings) are effective one and the same. They don't have much history seperately from each other (than the registration of the other America's Next Great Restaurant as trademarks). Jess4clovers, see find in getting everyone to duplicate their effort by continuing Soul Daddy seperately from ANGR Holdings. I told him he should have have moved the ANGR Holdings page to "Soul Daddy" as they are one and the same. I have been chastied by other administrators that I shouldn't do a "copy move" as it disrupts the authoring records. --Spshu (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Another Request...

Hello, Nightscream. You have new messages at CHAK 001's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hama

I'm afraid I don't think anything is harmed by waiting a few days and making everyone feel like part of the process. That said, if an editor is replacing a clearly terrible picture with a reasonably decent one, then, yes, I agree a quick change can be fine. Otherwise, there's no need to rush — talking and discussion are good things. I'm certainly happy you've added a lot of much-needed photos to the Project! --Tenebrae (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Because you're replacing clearly inferior images with better ones. If you had replaced the existing image with the one the other editor did, I would have reverted and asked for a discussion first, as well. In any case, I agree that your image of Hama is the superior one, and I think in any discussion, other editors would agree. Keep up the great work! --Tenebrae (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree. What you or I might consider a lesser image replacing an existing one, the editor who placed the inferior image believes it's not inferior. So let's agree to disagree: My take remains that for anything as important as replacing an infobox image, discussion is of paramount importance. Indeed, discussion is the very lifeblood of Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
While I didn't personally ask for discussion on your infobox changes, I would have supported any editor who had. There's a distinction to be made between my own personal tastes and standards for photos, which coincide with yours, and policy. In other words, simply because I personally didn't ask for discussion doesn't mean that another editor would be wrong to have done so.
In any case, one relatively minor difference of opinion doesn't change my feeling that you're one of WikiProject Comics' best editors, and a colleague whom I value a great deal. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

what does 'ce' mean in a edit summ?

S*K*A*K*K 09:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Denotes a "Copy edit". LeadSongDog come howl! 15:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

911 CTs, DNFTT

Dear Nightscream, thank you for leaving the note at my talkpage. You will find that another user has identified iknowthetruthandyoudont as a troll as well and closed the discussion. I do see your point, and I am definitely in favour of civility, but this user was obviously pulling legs. Regards, Sören Koopmann (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Prometheus class starship for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Prometheus class starship 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/Prometheus class starship 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Cerebus page edits

Hi. Thanks for taking the time to do some clean-up on those Cerebus pages. The only thing is that User:JasonAQuest insists the pages should be removed, so you might want to wait until there's a consensus on keeping them before potentially wasting any more time editing pages that may find themselves in the trash. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 23:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we've reached a consensus to keep them. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 11:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Chrissie Zullo

Hey Nightscream! It's been a while but I'm slowly getting back to editing wikipedia again. Anyway have just created a new stub for Chrissie Zullo, the current cover artist for Fables's spinoff Cinderella. It's been marked for Speedy Deletion, wondering if you can help edit to try and save this article. Thanks in advance! Stextc 03:38, May 18, 2011

Thanks for the advice! I have added the interview link from cbr to the bottom of the article. These some reviews of her work from Fables 100 which I will also add. As the creator the article I'm not allowed to remove to the speedy deletion tag. However there's enough material covering Chrissie Zullo to warrant saving her from Speedy deletion. Would you remove the Speedy Deletion tag or ask a 3rd party to review and remove? Stextc (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again for all your advice. It's always appreciated. I have done your suggestions and have modified accordingly. (01) Issue numbers have been added to the bibliography. (02) Details from her 2 interviews have been added as well. (03) I have also found a review of her work. (04) Added links to her blog and deviantart. Please let me know what you think. Anything else I can add? Stextc (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow! The article is really taking shape now. I will incorporate all your suggestions in any future articles. I've said it twice (but it can't hurt saying it more), once again thanks for your assistance. You can turn my terrible articles into a much better standard. Stextc (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity Rehab Update

Thank you for cleaning up my post on this page. I believe I was right, however, to err on the side of caution by putting "Apparent" in front of overdose as there were conflicting reports then, and it has been outright denied at this point. Now, the article I cited did not show a conflict so it made sense to me to let "Apparent" be taken out without much of a fuss. Since it has been denied and there are still conflicting reports out there, wouldn't it be correct to put "Apparent" back in? Thanks again. Cmetian (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks again. I have a new article here: http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2011/05/23/2011-05-23_jeff_conaway_did_not_overdose_is_tenuous_in_coma_as_he_battles_pneumonia_says_dr.html which denies the overdose and adds some worse news not related to the wiki topic at hand. As both stories have different sources, it still seems to be one persons word against another, hence the confusion. What I personally believe isn't relevant, of course. Cmetian (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Sounds right to me. The only reason for hesitation at this point is that his publicist, who should theoretically be speaking for him has never recanted his belief that it was an overdose. 68.229.162.234 (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: Talk:Pawn Stars

I don't now if it is exactly incomplete of inaccurate, I did a quick assessment, but in comparison with B-class TV programs 24 (TV series) Dallas (TV series), and the most similar Las Vegas-related article No Way Out (2008), it is missed from some technical stuff (production, ratings, awards (if it has). As WP:Nevada/Assessment says "The article reasonably covers the topic ,checkY and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.Question? It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article,checkY although some sections may need expansion,Question? and some less important topics may be missing.☒N Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 02:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Production like Dallas_(TV_series)#Production_details or Brothers_&_Sisters_(2006_TV_series)#Production_notes. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 02:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
But their information (sourced or not) still being more than PS. Look, if you have *any* objection with the assessment of Dallas, take it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment; if you have an objection with my assessments Wikipedia:WikiProject Nevada/Assessment exists for a reason, and by the way, still failing the fifth point if you want its B-criteria. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 03:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The PS history section is actually its history (background) section, and has not enough material to call it its "production". If you want to compare professional production sections look House (TV series), 30 Rock, The Simpsons, South Park; all are featured content but since you apparently do not have enough with B-class articles, GA/FAs will help you to understand its "obvious omissions". Also, I see no critical reception, and as I noted before there's no ratings. Also, it has no images, videos or any other material beyond title card. The "In 2011, Facebook launched Pawn Stars: The Game applicaton for their website.[101]" argument is irrelevant to its section and there are some dead links. As you can see, it fails point #2 and 5 of Nevada's wikiproject (and it actually may fail Business/Television B-class). Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 03:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
As you are going to excuse yourself with valid arguments on topics and invalid on WikiProject assessment, such as the "this is real TV, not fiction" I left this discussion. I simply won't waste my time with this nonsensical conversation. I'm one of the very few crew that assess/re-assess articles, and with users like you that believe the assessments are factaully wrong, especially those articles they are involved enough, I understand why those users practically do not exist. On a side note, if you didn't notice it, Brothers & Sisters (2006 TV series) is C-class not B-class, and I referenced as a production-kind I was refering, not that you should do a piece of crap like that. As I told you Wikipedia:WikiProject Nevada/Assessment exist, if you believe I'm wrong go there not with me. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 05:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Bill Sienkiewicz

That sounds like a good idea.

He really didn't like the photo there now? Gotta tell you, the guy should quit complaining and take his own darn picture!   : )   But, yeah, your idea sounds right on. Thanks for being cool. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And dude: Nice to see a fellow Taxi fan! (Assuming that's the impetus for your Jeff Conaway work.) --Tenebrae (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, it was nice to think so! Dude, I had no idea you were an admin. Bravo! --Tenebrae (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Geez, all my Wiki-friends have become admins since I got here. I admire all the extra work you guys take on, mediating disputes, overseeing merges, enforcing policy ... it's hard enough finding the time just to edit and keep up with one's watchlist. So I say again: Bravo, buddy! --Tenebrae (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It might be a cache issue on my computer, but your cropped photo shows up on the photo's File page, but not on the article itself. Weird. Just a head's up. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Touré

Hi I am Touré. You gave me a warning for adding something to my page but I don't understand what I've done. Why is it wrong to add a verifiable fact to my page? I am now teaching at CUNY and I added that to the page about me. What is wrong with doing that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.54.246 (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have responded on the article's talk page. Nightscream (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Since the matter of whether to include Touré's surname has come up again, can you cast your vote here? If you're new to this matter, and not familiar with the arguments for and against doing so, you can read them just above that section, or click here. The discussion is of considerable length, but not too long to get a gist of the primary arguments for and against. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream Nightscream (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Nightscream, Thanks for letting me know about Toure. i had checked the page repeatedly but then got discouraged when Jimbo deleted it because of an emotional email. I have added my thoughts. I hope you are doing well. Thank You. 173.79.75.65 (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)173.79.75.65 (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, I'm male, for the record. (It's at the top of my user page.) No worries, though. :-) Nightscream (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

? I didnt say 'she' did I? I always try to use 'their' on WP bc I dont know anyone's gender. 173.79.75.65 (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Johann Rall

hi Nightscream, i just saw that you added unreferenced to Johann Rall, but it has a references section at the bottom, am i missing some subtlety here? thanks -- The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

no worries :) cheers -- The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoops!

Hello there. I did not add the sentence. I was just trying to revert the content removal from the IP address that he did. I am not the one who added the sentence. --Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 22:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

File:USSPrometheus.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:USSPrometheus.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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Brent Spiner

Just FYI: you tagged a user talk page without editing the referenced article, and without signing the user talk page. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:USSPrometheusTopAndSide.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:USSPrometheusTopAndSide.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Knight

Dude! Good to see you! Guess we're both having an exciting Memorial Day...!

Didn't mean to erase the "fact" tag, and I'll put it back in; I'd seen that my newly added info was redundant, so I returned quickly to merge it with the existing material, plus the original citation for the news. One thing I might ask, though: I Love the '70s really isn't what one would call a documentary; it's non-fiction, like a reality show or a news program, but it's not journalistic the way a documentary is. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"Retrospective" is perfect ... much better than non-fiction. Ah, that writerly joy when you hit just the right word. Nothing feels quite like it. Good working with you, pal! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Always a pleasure. When I see your signature on my talk page, I smile even before I read the comment! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: Jamie Chung

I am not "removing where someone is from", please do not take my edits so personally. All I'm saying is, most articles in Wikipedia note that the person was born there. They do not say s/he was also RAISED there. See Mariah Carey, Natalie Portman, and the thousands of other articles. Unless it states further on in the article that they have moved in their childhood, it can be assumed they are raised there as well. Estheroliver (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If this is true, we may very well challenge the thousands of Wikipedia articles that only state the subject's place of birth. No one is really raised where they were born, simply due to the lack of sources. Yes, it may be true she is not as famous as the other women I used as examples, but if she really has been on TV, I would think she would mention where she grew up and memories from that time period and such. I think Chung is really born and raised in SF. And I hope you do not take this the wrong way, as is often the case with written words online. I am not trying to give you an "attitude" or whatever. Estheroliver (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're reading into it so much. I was very surprised when I went to my talk page and saw the huge response, all about where somebody was born and raised.
1) The reason why I mentioned Natalie Portman was because her article clearly states she moved from Israel when she was three years old. You told me that Jamie Chung was probably born and raised in SF. I don't know if this will, once again, come off as extremely confusing to you, but I said "I think it is easy enough and enough just to say that Chung was born in SF. People WILL GET THE HINT and they WILL SEE that she was RAISED THERE." Unlike Portman's article, it does not state that she moved in her youth.
2) You were telling me, "Just because it says s/he is born in one city does not necessarily mean they were born and raised there." See #1. Yes, this is true, and I told you, "But we can assume, if it does not note that the subject had moved, that yes, they were indeed born and raised in their birthplace." You responded, "However, that is a very unfair statement. Sometimes, the subject in question has indeed moved in their youth, but there are limited sources or sources that have not been checked/read/discovered upon. So how would we know that their place of birth is where they have been raised as well?" My response to you (basically what it says there in different words): "If that is really true, why do you challenge Chung's article in particular? Why don't you go around to every article that has a similar format that is very vague and only states the person's birthplace? Maybe they moved, too. Why is her article in particular such a big deal?"
3) I already explained to you clearly that I objected to it because I believed that it was not necessary to state that she was born and raised there. Most articles I've seen clearly simply note that the subject was born in a place and that was enough; they were really born and raised there, and that was the end of it. However, now you're telling me, "If this is really true, there is no MoS that denotes that, so therefore I think either format is acceptable. A lot of notable articles still say that they are born and raised there." Estheroliver (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Someone still doesn't get it. Then again, I can't say I should be surprised by the response. Use of quotation marks being incorrect or not, that was me summarizing what I thought you were saying and addressing those points. I'm not going to use it again because you're most likely going to crawl back to me with a similar response: "...However, that was totally different from what I had in mind." I had tried to be diplomatic and respond to you in a way that would follow you, trying to clarify what you were telling me. Unfortunately, now what you're telling me is that everything I'm telling you was just taken out of words and it doesn't even follow what you were telling me originally.
Oh, wow. Just because I didn't mention it until later on means it's not true? It does indeed (and has all along) say in Natalie Portman's article she moved. She did not stay in Jerusalem. Additionally, everything else you're telling me is basically the same thing that I was telling you before. Oh, wow. Why does it matter anything if it says she was born and raised there in the source? If you put that she was born there, most people will get it.
The second bullet point is the exact same thing I had assumed you were telling me. What's the issue about dancing around what I thought you were saying, and then saying it again? Sure, it may not be exactly what you had said, but it was pretty close. And I still don't understand why you haven't added such a line to all of the other articles that say the subject is only born there.
BTW, even if it doesn't say anything about the MoS, that really is what it is. Some articles do say the subject was only born there. Shrugs. I'm not going to resort to writing huuuuuuuuuge paragraphs that resort to blowing steam off somebody I don't know in real life, however. If you really wanted me to be like other Wikipedia editors, you would of done the, "Thanks, but no thanks. I'm not going to talk about this matter with you any further." and explain why I was wrong right away instead of letting me go off into all these false statements, and, from the way I took it, overreacting over a simple edit. I'm sure readers won't really care either way. Estheroliver (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
And the edit history just goes as further proof of this. I was truly surprised somebody would write me a response that says that I need to work on quotation marks and that my summary of the responses was totally wrong. Are you serious? No one's ever been that concerned to say something like that to me; instead, they would say that that is not what they wanted to say and make their point. Now you're on to personal attacks, such as how you responded that you didn't know what I was talking about, and especially the last little nasty paragraph of your (unsurprisingly lengthy) response. What you've just said in bullets is the same thing that I was saying all along, except for the first one. Instead, you decided to be picky and say that the words were different, the quotes were not quotes, could not be quotes because you had never said them word-for-word. Well, I'm sorry, but the main points are still the same.
Why should I even waste my time? I see you've wasted a lot of yours. Estheroliver (talk)
I saw you still kept beating the dead horse and wrote me something. Not sorry, I didn't bother reading it. Estheroliver (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
BTW, don't write me anything anymore. I don't know why people bother. You should of taken the message and just screwed off already, instead you had to resort to these nasty words. Somebody must have issues in their real lives, and BTW, that was not brief. I still didn't read it but I'm not gonna be bothered to scan the chunk. Estheroliver (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Real World: New Orleans (2010) Reunion

Hello Nightscream. As the current Real World season (Las Vegas) is winding down, I just now noticed that the previous RW season (New Orleans) did not have a summary for the reunion special. So I took the initiative and added a reunion summary the best I could (without copying verbatim from MTV). Check it out. I'm sure you'll likely make some tweaks to that reunion summary.

Thank you. DPH1110 (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)DPH1110

Pancake images

Tx for your work on images. One thought -- the MOS suggests not sandwiching text between images; I wonder if some of the images at the pancake article are at odds with that. Tx. (You can reply here).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks for informing me of that; I wasn't aware that MoS had a guideline for that. What's ironic is that I myself don't generally care for sandwiching images like that, but in trying to make the images work in that article, I thought they ended up looking all right. Can you link me to the relevant MoS page? I'll look it over and remove some of the images if need be. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 7:02 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Sure. See MOS:IMAGES, fourth bullet. I agree w/the application of common sense, and that at times this is a rule that deserves to be ignored if for some reason it makes more sense to do so. And that would be in line w/the language of the MOS, which says "Avoid" rather than "Never". I defer to you. BTW -- I just had a similar discussion with an editor whom I respect but disagreed with on this point re here, which I should point out to you to reflect in all candor the fact that not all editors have the same view here. (Though I had a different view there, I dropped it as I respect the editor and didn't see the value in a long conversation on a point as to which we simply had different views ... which in the scheme of things was a bit shy in importance of a cure for cancer)--Epeefleche (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Andre Birleanu

If you are board, it would be great if you could have a look at Andre Birleanu. I feel as though the entire thing needs a massive edit, but have not had a chance to do any serious editing. Most of the edits are by WP:SPA, and it's hard to tell what is actually true, what is simply fluff, and what is important. If you don't have time, then no big deal. I will most likely revisit it in a day or two. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Administrator... I am the creator (last one) of Andre Birleanu page... The subject is known in 32 countries and most of them not only in English .. All material was accompanied by links from various news, entertainment, fashion, publication websites... As plasticspork admits above " he doesn't know what is or isn't true" but not because it isn't true simply because he doesn't know because he isn't in the fashion market, so he doesn't care to know, it's understandable.. it's like me and space travel... the page was edited by you and OF COURSE by plasticpork who all he does is delete not add, that is NOT true editing my friend, do you only cut trees or you also replant? The page I view it and is fine at the moment.. thank you both.. But to say it needs a "major editing" then that is really crazy... ALL deleting over the past 3 yrs has been done 80% by plastickpork as if it's a pers vendetta against a subject he doesn't know... and if I read it correctly it is also a form of vandalism to deliberately delete others work when there is clear obvious data and links attached to all the work... And that too is deleted systematically ... thank you both for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaphoto (talk • contribs) 09:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Richard Dreyfuss

I would like to include information about Richard Dreyfuss' Masonic membership. I was personally present at the ceremonies, and I saw him join the Masonic fraternity. I saw him take the degrees of the Scottish Rite, and become a 32d degree Mason. He is proud of his memberships, and I am certain he would have no objection to this being included in the Wikipedia page. A major article is forthcoming in the Masonic journals, and his membership is public record. Cemab4y (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Please advise me how to cite proper accreditation,etc. Cemab4y (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Route 495/32nd St

The designation 32nd Street is reserved for the portion of Bergen Turnpike as it cuts across UC. Djflem (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:IsamotKol.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Human Centipede (First Sequence) is currently a featured article candidate

Hi there, thanks for all the helpful edits you have contributed to The Human Centipede article, I thought I'd let you know that the article is currently a featured article candidate!

At the moment I'm trying my best to make positive changes to the article based upon the comments and suggestions on the article review, but any help with this would really be appreciated. The featured article review is here and if you have any spare time it would be really cool if you could have a look at the comments and help make sure the article is meeting the standards that are asked of a featured article. Plus if there's anything you think you can do to help improve the article, or anything important that it's missing, please do go ahead and make the changes!

Thanks for all your help with the article. cya Coolug (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect OVERLINK. Since you had some involvement with the OVERLINK redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Favonian (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 48 hours per this edit and preceding comments you've made. Yes, 48 hours is a bit long for a single personal attack, but you're an admin. You're tasked with enforcing these rules, and consequently should know better. Ironholds (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

And what, may I ask, is your relationship to Hammersoft? How did you come upon this matter? Nightscream (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
It was brought up on IRC as "something someone should take a look at" by an (as far as I am aware) uninvolved user. I took a look at it and saw it as a clear violation - as did several other admins wandering through. Ironholds (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Where is this? Nightscream (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I went to WP:IRC and couldn't find it. Can you provide a link? Nightscream (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, you went on IRC and couldn't find a prior discussion? I'm trying to work out what you mean, here. Ironholds (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean "what I mean"? In what way am I being unclear? I went to WP:IRC and could not find any mention of this matter, nor was I notified of any discussion on this. Can you provide a link to where it was posted? I'd like to read it. Nightscream (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
So let me see if I understand this correctly. Discussions are carried in which people can decide to block someone, in which the editor/admin in question is not notified, and these are discussions that neither he nor the rest of the editing community have any way participating in, monitoring or maintaining any sense of transparency over? And this is considered acceptable?
I'll be contacting Jimmy Wales over this. Nightscream (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Its the same thing as using email, all grounds for blocking should be on wiki, quietly asking another admin (or other editor) to take a look at a situation is fairly common, whether the request to take a look comes from a talk page note, IRC, email, or a phone call the editor taking any action is responsible for their own actions. ΔT The only constant 16:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
It is not the "same thing". Matters such as this need to be open and transparent. In such cases, the user in question is notified that there is an ongoing discussion, so that he/she can participate. It is posted at some public forum like WP:ANI or Wikiquette Alerts so that the rest of the community can monitor the discussion in the interest of transparency, and so that members may participate if they choose. If a block is imposed, a template notice is placed on the user's talk page so that he/she can appeal if he/she chooses.
None of this was done in this case.
This is completely inappropriate, and you think you're getting away with this, you're mistaken. Nightscream (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Not even the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around. Sad. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, you were warned? Nevermind. At least insult someone directly instead of circuitously adding passive-aggressive disses to edit summaries. /done butting in ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think this matter should have been brought to ANI instead of unilateral action by Ironholds. Toddst1 (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Todd, let me be clear. This was not unilateral action. This was not some private /query window. It was brought up in the official admin-only channel and several other admins agreed with me that a block is necessary. For future reference if you find my blocks unreasonable, feel free to leave me a message rather than post ANI notices containing spurious and incorrect factual claims. Ironholds (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't post any ANI notices. How could I have, when I was blocked?

The issue is not mere unilateralism. I made clear in my messages above what the problems are with conducting this sort of activity in a non-public, non-recorded forum. If you want to understand why doing this is wrong, then try reading them. As it is, that's two things you've gotten wrong in one message (one of which is a false accusation), which I guess is par for the course with people like you. Nightscream (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Note that the message starts "Todd" and the person I am replying to is User:Toddst1. Would you like to please explain why you think I'm replying to you? And please explain what "people like you" means. Ironholds (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the post by Todd. Stricken. Nightscream (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.MarnetteD | Talk 17:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I know that you cannot post there for the moment but I did want you to be aware of this. MarnetteD | Talk 17:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Marnette. It is appreciated. Nightscream (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Dude

I've worked with you for a couple, three years now. You do good work, you've contributed a lot of great photos, I'm proud to have you as a colleague. I know you know better than to write in an edit summary "bullshit whining from lying hypocrite editor." You must have gotten upset and let your emotions run away with you, and I'm sure you regret it. I would let the other editor know that you've taken a breath, you see where this was wrong, and that on reflection you want to apologize and calmly discuss your differences with this other editor and perhaps with third-party mediating editors. Everyone's entitled to a mistake, and it's not the end of the world. I'm sure a couple of people working in good faith can reach a workable compromise. If there's any way I can help that happen, please let me know. It's cool. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I lost my temper, and while I'm not proud of it, I didn't think it was a big deal, since it was only my talk page that I was editing, and didn't think the other editor or anyone else would see it. Since the other editor was not warned for using the phrase "admin fuckup" when talking directly to me on his talk page, it seemed like an odd bit of hypocrisy for me to get block, and under the circumstances that I was. (No notice, no transparency, no template appeal, etc.) Had I known it would lead to this level of vindictiveness, and such a clearly punitive double-standard block, I wouldn't have written it. Right now, though, I'm not in a position to say anything outside of my own talk page, since I can't. But thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I was just adding the below as you were writing the above.
I was adding that I do see your point that one should not be blocked without having had a chance to defend oneself and face one's accuser, as it were. While your language with another editor is bright-line incivility, and threatening to "go to Jimmy Wales" seems like jumping the gun, I agree I'm uncomfortable with the idea of what seems to the naked eye like "back room negotiations." I believe everyone, even the seemingly guilty, deserve the opportunity to speak in one's own defense.
And, yes, the other editor should be blocked, I believe, for using the phrase "admin fuckup." If that editor has not been, I myself would like to know why.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Then ask at the ANI board discussion. Me, I love how Off2riorob, John and AKMAsk suggest that I make an unblock request. How am I supposed to do this? Telepathy? LOL.
Hammersoft even references a warning I gave to one editor for calling someone else a "troll" in a talk page message, and one of my blocks of Asgardian, claiming that I did so because of two public edit summaries, when the edit summaries were not only not on his personal talk page, but the latest in a long list of violations on his part. Naturally, though, I can't respond to point this out. Ya gotta love the system. :-)

To the Community

For the record, I'd like to apologize to the community for my uncivil comments, and for the amount of trouble it's caused.

I'd also like to know why Delta's use of "admin fuckup" while speaking to me is considered okay, since he was never warned for it, let alone blocked.

I'd also like to know how this block is preventative rather than punitive, especially giving Hammersoft's admission "several administrators agreed he needed to be rapped on the knuckles."

I'd also like to know how you justify having a back-room discussion on such matters without documenting it, without notifying the user, without allowing him to defend himself, and without giving him a chance to participate in the forum to appeal the block. Nightscream (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Just a note to clarify my statement about admin fuckup, it may not have been the best choice of words but it was not a personal attack, nor directed at you. If you take a look at List of characters of 8-Bit Theater and its history you will see a case where User:Bahamut0013 clearly abused his tools to try to force his point of view in an edit war regarding non-free content, where he was clearly wrong. I would classify that as a major fuckup (again not targeting the user, but rather the situation). I was not trying to imply that your actions fell into that category, but rather all users should be treated equally, because even the highest users (administrators) can completely make a mess of non-free content and related policies if they are not familiar with them. If you have any other questions feel free to ask. ΔT The only constant 03:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • So essentially you'd like to apologise while complaining that it's everyone else's fault and getting both the facts and the timeline wrong at the same time? And the answers are, in order, "delta's actions weren't brought to my attention", "he didn't say that" and "it was a channel filled by 30 trusted members of the community and both I and other admins reached the same conclusion. If you think a chance to appeal and the need for a defence are valid concerns even on-wiki you need to hand back the tools, because anyone who thinks the block system works like the federal court system has obviously never encountered AIV. Ironholds (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about it being everyone's else's fault, nor did I mention the federal court system. I said that manner in which this was handled was wrong, which it was. I don't care if you claim which members of the community were present at this discussion. Yes, the ability to appeal or defend oneself are indeed valid, concerns. Activities like this should be open, transparent, and documented, period. If you disagree, you're wrong. Nightscream (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Unblock

Wow, sorry to see all the drama. From the ANI discussion,

So, I would say an appropriately worded use of the {{unblock}} would be granted here (crossing the t's and dotting the i's). I would just unblock you right now, but (a) I don't want to wheel war given the tone of the ANI thread and (b) there isn't that much time left on the block. As I am sure I don't have to tell you, I do hope you are unblocked soon. All the best. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

To reiterate what I said above, I'd like to apologize to the community for losing my temper earlier with the edit summary. In addition to the fact that it was an edit summary I wrote while removing a message from my talk page that I didn't think anyone else would read, it was, when viewed against the broader tapestry of my five + years here, an aberration. I've usually not lost my temper on this site, as one of the Barnstars on my user page attests to. Among all the other reasons, had I known it would've led to all this, I naturally would've thought it through more.

That said, the block is inappropriate for a number of reasons.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Nightscream (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1. Only one warning was given prior to the block, as opposed to the usual two or three. While I will not minimize the inappropriateness of the two edit summaries in question, a block after one warning is clearly overkill.

2. The editor with whom I came into conflict, User:Δ, used the phrase "admin fuckup" (whether this could've been an allusion to my actions I'll leave up to the reader), not in an edit summary he thought no one would see, but when speaking to me on his talk page, and was not warned for this, let alone blocked. In general, the fact that I was blocked under the circumstances that I was, when I've seen numerous other people far exceed what I did without any sanction, even at ANI, is inconsistent, to put it mildly. User:Asgardian terrorized this site for over three years with a variety of different behaviors before I managed to get him banned, largely because many of those who participated in the attempts to address his behavior at places like ANI were incapable of forming a reasonable, decisive conclusion about him, but now, all of a sudden, a block is imposed for this? Some have opined regarding this matter that admins are held to a higher standard. WP:CIVILITY says nothing about non-admins being allowed to violate that policy with greater impunity than admins, and User:Δ himself stated to me "Everyone gets treated equally". This is equal? How?

3. The discussion which led to my block was held in a non-public, non-documented, non-transparent venue of which neither I nor the community was privy, notified about, or made able to participate. This is HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE for matters such as blocks, as such things need to be handled with full transparency and community oversight, and need to be documented for the record. Similarly, no block template was placed on my talk page that would've provided a block appeal (I was not aware until Plastikspork notified me above that the blocked user can place templates on their own page), and I was not able to participate in the ANI discussion on this matter, where a number of comments were made about me and my history that I was not able to respond to.

4. Blocks are required to be preventative, not punitive, as stated by the Blocking policy, yet this block was clearly personal and punitive. Ironholds admitted this when he said "several administrators agreed he needed to be rapped on the knuckles." Further to this, Ironholds made the following false accusation on my talk page after the block, "For future reference if you find my blocks unreasonable, feel free to leave me a message rather than post ANI notices containing spurious and incorrect factual claims. I posted no ANI notices whatsoever, with or without any spurious or incorrect factual claims." His accusation to that effect may be interpreted to mean that this has become personal to him. Draw your own conclusions from this.

In short, a second warning would've sufficed. The level to which this has descended is way out of hand, and not reflective of my overall history and service to this site, and the back-alley manner in which it was done stinks to high heaven. Nightscream (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

  • In the above unblock request, and before it, you've attributed something to me that I never said. I never said "several administrators agreed he needed to be rapped on the knuckles.". You also said "Hammersoft made the following false accusation...(etc)" I didn't say that. Please correct your statements. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Fixed it. Nightscream (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Re no. 4 - please note that my comment was not directed at you, and it is thus not "false". If you feel that this indicates it has become personal you are firstly wrong (as said, it wasn't directed at you - note how the message starts with "Todd") and secondly posting irrelevancies, since whether or not it has become personal at a point after the action is by-the-by. If you think that your "overall history and service to the site" gives you a get-out-of-jail-free card, you obviously don't understand the basics of the rule of law. "I have been around for ages and am a trusted contributor" does not equate to "lets give him a free pass", it equates to "sorry, you're tasked with enforcing this policy, you've been here for 5+ years and you can't even follow it? No, you do not get a free pass". If you have a problem with being held to this standard, I invite you to hand back your administrator userrights and I'll be happy to treat you as I'd treat a normal editor. Ironholds (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you were speaking to Todd. I've stricken the relevant passages.

As for your other comments, I never said or implied that my tenure year equated to a free pass. I stated that the way this was done was wrong, which it was. Nightscream (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Your statement "The level to which this has descended is way out of hand, and not reflective of my overall history and service to this site" implies that, as a long-term contributor, you deserve special privilege of some sorts in situations like this. Ironholds (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Only in your imagination, which you seem to regard as the ultimate yardstick for reality. Now stop bothering me. This matter is concluded, and I'm done responding to your self-righteous posturing, and your distortions of my words. Nightscream (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • A note that if your first actions after being unblocked following a series of personal attacks include personal attacks in themselves, you probably shouldn't be able to edit at this point. I'm done here, but keep in mind that the best way to respond to an unblock is not to fling insults at the person who made the initial action...particularly when it was made for flinging insults. Ironholds (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
What part of "stop bothering" me are you having difficulty understanding? Are you so immature that you can't resist beating a dead horse long after it's decomposed? I'm done talking with you, and your last I-gotta-get-the-last-word-in distortion above illustrates this. You were not "attacked" or "insulted", you were criticized for your behavior, which is not the same thing, regardless of whether you disagree with the criticism. Now stop leaving these little propaganda missives on my talk page. Any further ones left by you on my talk page will be removed, unread. Nightscream (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. Nightscream, look at what you just posted and ask yourself if you are venting in a helpful manner or not. From here it looks like a bad direction to go.
  2. Ironside, deserved block or not the process that was followed here looks like Nightscream was tried, convicted, and sentenced behind closed doors. And that the penalty levied was harsher than would, or should, have been on another editor or admin with a singular warning over the incident and lack of civility blocks. And I really don't think we want to visit the ANI dramas where loud complaints of incivility, chronic and/or excessive, are shrugged off with based on contribution record or special skills/knowledge.
  3. As a suggestion: At this point the overall situation looks to have been settled - an acknowledgement by Nightscream as to why he was block along with an appology shortening the block. Poking at it isn't going to do anyone any good. How about we all step away and hope and assume a repeat won't happen because something was actually learned here? Sound good?
- J Greb (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm   and somehow I didn't get an EC that there were two posts made while I was editing...
Guys. Stop and Think, please. Or do we need to pull the internet over and let you off?
- J Greb (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked

Since you've apologized for the edit summaries in question, I've unblocked you. --rgpk (comment) 14:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ThotGor2375.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ThotGor2375.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:Jinx.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:JinxAnimated.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Breen (Star Trek). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ΔT The only constant 13:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the file's FUR's problems:
  • Sourced to a Wikia. Not the best practice normally since most Wikia have zero sourcing.
  • At least when I click on it, it comes back as a 400 "Bad Request".
At this point the image isn't sourced.
And Δ, being explicit on the deficiency in your 2nd removal would have been helpful. You were not clear and got reverted. Repeating yourself assumes that other editors are mind readers or are mystically going to "get it". PLease work with others. Thanks.
- J Greb (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:JuniorSkeptic.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Breen (Star Trek)

Hi Nightscream. Ched Davis and I put together a FAQ/troubleshooting guide at Wikipedia:Fixing non-free image problems#LINKCORRECT, in hopes that Δ and other NFCC workers would link to it when removing images, to help editors such as yourself understand why an image was removed even if the FUR appears correct at first glance. Δ has been including a link to this in his edit summaries. I'm wondering if you could help Ched and me improve the wording of this guide, as it didn't seem to help in this case. 28bytes (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oliver Sacks

Many thanks for taking the time to explain your actions. I totally agree, of course. After logging off I had thought to create exactly the same Section, especially since his prosopagnosia seemed to have liitle to do with his 'early life' or 'education'!. Much better now. I'm sure there is more that could be added to his Personal Life. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Eddie Brock

I love how you just undid all my work on the Eddie Brock page without asking me to change or edit. Thanks so much for being considerate. Unsourced original reasearch? Its already sourced at the bottom of the page , do you really need me to resource it? It's all in Amazing Spider-Man and it's all characterization which is completely essential to the article whether you fail to realize that or not. So you removed it stating that it could be integrated into the publication section...IT WAS ALREADY INTEGRATED THERE BEFORE YOU REMOVED IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.22.186 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Thank you for your comments, Nightscream. I will reflect on these matters. It seems to me that the previous version was misleading: it is true that the material was taken away before the forensic investigation was significantly underway, but it seems to imply that the removal of the material _prevented_ a thorough forensic investigation of the materials. I'll consider carefully and collect my thoughts (and refs) before making any more edits.Ordinary Person (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I'm never sure of the standard way to conduct a conversation via User Talk pages. Should I reply to your comments on my own page, or post the rejoinder on yours? The former is more conventional because then the whole conversation is in one place, but on the other hand I then suspect that my interlocutor will not be informed that I've replied.Ordinary Person (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for Speedy Deletion

I recently noticed This edit you made in January. I reverted it, as that is an archive page of old discussion. I suggest that if you feel strongly about this you start a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Let me know if you have any questions. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 00:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Da Vinci Code

The alterations of the wording of the "gnostic gospels" section are in the original references (indeed, I missed something: what is written as the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene" is only "The Gospel of Mary" in the refs, and is very debated on whether it has anything to do with the woman from Magdala, even though it's known it's a 3/4th century text at the earliest): I edited the references (to the references/cited material) for clarity, faithfulness to the references, and to general usage. The additional information about the Biblical canon is not included in detail (it is only that "there was debate for a time after Constantine, he did not 'write' the Bible," in essence): however, the date of Constantine's reign, the First Council of Nicaea, the relegation of the deuterocanon to a separate "Apocrypha" section in the 1611 KJV (and the Puritan's and Geneva Bible's outright rejection of them), along with Anglican Canon 39 stating that the "apocrypha" are to be read, but not to be used for the derivation of doctrine, the date of the Council of Trent (when the Roman Catholic canon was dogmatised as part of the counter-Reformation: since 1546 there's been no debate about the content of the Scriptures in any sect of Protestant, Orthodox, or Roman Catholic Christianity) and the differences in OT Biblical canons - the Protestant, based on the Tanakh, the RC, based on the Vulgate and Tridentine proclamations, and the EO, based on the Septuagint (the same: the differing lengths of the Bibles, 66, 73 and 77/8 books [depending on whether Epistle of Jeremiah is Ch VI of Baruch or a separate book]) are all well-known, and I did not believe they needed to be referenced, based on the Wikipedia guideline, "If you think something is likely to be challenged, it must be cited, but if it is not likely to be challenged, it doesn't require citation". Since there has been no debate about the canon of Scripture since the time of the Reformation, and the differing canons are very well-known, I believed this applied. However, I can provide detailed references (including Acts of Trent and minutes of the meetings as are available in the public domain) if needed. The derivation of the terms "apocrypha" and "deuterocanon" are also well-known and can be cited out of the OED. JohnChrysostom (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the citations already extant.JohnChrysostom (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
No, the list of books are not in the extant references, nor is the fact that Eastern Orthodox use the Septuagint canon: they are "underlying historical fact": however, they do not alter the arguments being made, but show the results of the arguments that were made (the inclusion or exclusion of these books occurring 1200 years after C the Great). The Tridentine Council as finalising the canon of RC Scripture is, and a very short mention of the "apocrypha" and deuterocanon as examples of continued changes to the Bible after Constantine's death (it doesn't give the "over a millennium" thing, but to say "350 AD is 1200 years before 1550 AD" seems to fall short of any kind of synthesis or original research, unless arithmetic is beyond the average editor/reader, and just serves to put what is being stated in historical perspective). It does not say that the Council of Trent was a part of the counter-Reformation, but since this is so widely known and uncontested, it serves, again, to put the entire early modern debate over the canon of scripture (which is mentioned) in to historical perspective by distancing it from C the G. It is also stated that Constantine had no say in the council other than to convoke it, as he was not a bishop and caesaropapism (although the term is not used) was not yet heard of: Christianity had just become an "accepted" religion. It is further stated, and also well-known, that 1 Nicaea did not hear matters pertaining to the canon of Scripture, but was Christological (and Trinitarian) in nature (being a refutation of the heresiarch Arius).JohnChrysostom (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
No, the conclusion that Dan Brown's "hypothesis" (actually fictional - I'm pretty sure even Dan Brown doesn't take it seriously - but for some reason pushed by him as real to market the book, and with a Gnostic revivalist movement that he helped launch again due to the book: a more correct term would be "the fiction that Dan Brown [mis]represents as factual in his narrative" or something similar) is wrong - and attacking it in detail - is the raison d'etre of the Olson and Miesel's book: you have misunderstood me. The only thing that's not in the book is the list of different Christian canons and the Orthodox use of the Septuagint - everything else that is not related to the enumeration of books in each church's canon that was written is. All of the other removed material was wrongly removed, as it is from the book almost directly, but not quite plagiarism: it is a summary of two chapters, one refuting the "Qumran gnostic" conspiracy, and another refuting the "Constantine made the biblical canon" theory. Everything except the list of canons and the Septuagint comment should be restored.JohnChrysostom (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Identity Crisis

Is this about Batman being motivated by the revelation to develope the MK I spy satellite? The reason I added this was because it already said this on the article about OMACs so I was trying to make the articles consistant and bridge the gap. Brother MK I mentions this and refers back to the Identity Crisis storyline that is a prequel to the Infinite Crisis, so if my note on the end of IC is reverted, does this mean we should also revert this note of Batman's motivations from the OMAC article? AweCo (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Fear Itself

Because I thought we only had to add references to the issue, not the full details. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain what you are talking about regarding your note on my talk page. What I added to the article was not original research or unsourced, as I was referencing directly the comics which were already cited (that is, I had them open, flipping page by page). If you wanted to revert my edit, that is fine, but please don't call it what it is not. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, you've got it exactly right. I spend a lot of my time cleaning up after people who post unsourced things, or insert text in front of citations where it doesn't belong, and that sort of thing, so I'd like to think I'm not adding to the problem. :) 108.69.80.43 (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
No offense taken. As for the list on The Cavalry, I copied and pasted that from another article; I think that is supposed to mean she is the team leader, but I'm not sure, so that can probably be removed. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

To be honest Nightscream, it was stated that the recent Ghost Rider series was the 7th. I have also added some info about New Avengers #14 revolving around Mockingbird demonstrating new abilities when it comes to an attack by the Thule Society. Rtkat3 (talk) 6:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question about the cathedral in Fear Itself: Black Widow #1, I guess we can say that it's Notre Dame. Otherwise, I think any website showing previews of this issue can answer that for us. Rtkat3 (talk) 8:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as you left MODOK's name lingering around in the Fear Itself article, I was able to find some info that would have his name in it since the reviews state that MODOK ends up racing Black Fog to get to Red Hulk first. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm just letting you know that Giant-Man's fight with Greithoth had occured sometime after the events of the Iron Man 2.0 issues that revolved around this storyline since Absorbing Man didn't pick up the Hammer of Greithoth until those issues. Let's at least try to keep the info in chronological order. Rtkat3 (Rtkat3) 11:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I haven't noticed any info about the Avengers Mansion (presumingly not the Infinite Avengers Mansion) being where the Academy is. The Global Broadcast from Jonathan Standish of the Purifiers is his claim that the superpowered characters being responsible for the fear and chaos inflicted by the Serpent. By the way, how did you yourself join the Administrative Ranks? Rtkat3 (talk) 6:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Some of the tie-ins were from the previews provided by Comic Book Resources which I start in hopes that anyone who reads them might spice it up more since no one barely starts theirs on the day of the first release. As for "Fear Itself" #5, there was a full synopsis somewhere like the spoilers. I was even surprised that the Serpent has his own hammer which was strong enough to break Captain America's shield. For future references, you might want to start a seperate "Fear Itself" talk backs on my page like I did here. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Start another individual section for your notes! That's what I did before you merged them all here except for one. Rtkat3 (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan New York Temple

Your image of the Manhattan New York Temple at commons (File:4.28.11MormonChurchLinconSquareByLuigiNovi.jpg) is named incorrectly. This is not a common meetinghouse (i.e. church); instead it is a Temple (LDS Church). The description and categories have been fixed, but the file name is not right. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Travis Walton

I don't know where I put this but I just thought that you should know:

"67.191.157.112 (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC) I've tried to change this twice but have been met with disapprove both times with no real explanation (scientific) except that is not the "policy" of wikipedia to accept "3rd party observations" without other scientific/academic research... I feel this is unreasonable as the case has already been proven that individual time differences are relative to the conditions of the observer.. which is exactly what the ketone production segment of the Travis Walton article is talking about. Please disprove how I am wrong scientifically because frankily I believe that science and theory are on my side.. I understand that wikipedia wants to take a hyper critical/skeptical view on unorthodox matters but I think I am right on this. As for the "reliable sources" part, I did in fact provide an internal link to both on the twin paradox and einstein's theory of gravitional time dilation on both occassions in which I tried to edit the article. I have nothing to gain by doing so but I believe it is my social and moral responsibility to let the public know that the theory of time dilation could in fact but a legitimate and plausible explanation for the absence of ketone's in Walton's body. Moresoever I think this is exactly the kind of bureaucratic nonsensical "stick to the rules at all costs" mentality that is hurting academic establishments everywhere. What do you want me to do? Do a dissertation on Travis Walton and gravitational time dilation, publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, wait a couple of years of there to be enough reviews on it and then post it again? I'm sorry I would take the word of some random person on the street way before I start blindly using the washingtonpost as a source =/ <-- posted by user:olddangerfield777

^ Pretty much my rebuttal for why this guy (or site policy) keeps blocking mine and i'm sure many reasonable edits on this site that improves the informational and academic rigor that is expected of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olddangerfield777 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Conaway

Hey fellow comics and rasslin fan! The link to my edit didn't work...but in any event I *didn't make any deletions* - merely added the year to the date of his death which wasn't present and at the time was not included in the vicinity for context - unless of course I did so inadvertently, but I find that hard to fathom. Also this was the first time I've ever received a message from Wikipedia, and I just spent a good 20 minutes trying to figure out how to respond, so I would respectfully recommend more instruction/transparency for infrequent contributors. ˜˜˜˜ wh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.171.225 (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Celeb Rehab

What exactly did you revert in this edit that I "removed without a valid rationale" and added original research? "We go by what the episode says, and not what an editor says"? I really don't appreciate your tone. You act like I just joined the ship yesterday. —Mike Allen 01:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well it happens. I thought you maybe mixed me up with someone else. The only thing I removed was under Jeff's 'addictions' of Nexium and Celebrex. I guess it was shown that he was taking that, but he wasn't addicted to it and seeking treatment for it. Those drugs are just something you don't get addicted to. —Mike Allen 02:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The View (band)

Hi, could you please return to the article and correct the mistakes you have done, like saying that a 2010 tour is yet to happen (it's 2011 already, you know ;-)), deleting an album which has been out since March from the Discography section, deleting interwiki links to articles in Scottish Gaelic and Italian Wikipedias and so on? Thanks, --Thrissel (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's all right, these things happen. Thanks for speedy reaction! --Thrissel (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nightscream. You have new messages at Falcon8765's talk page.
Message added 06:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Falcon8765 (TALK) 06:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Nightscream. You have new messages at Falcon8765's talk page.
Message added 22:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Falcon8765 (TALK) 22:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Brian Sapient

Does that need rev/del? Dougweller (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Morrison

I like the third one, the closeup. You might want to tone down the saturation or the red hue. Also, of you have a chance to come back to my talk page ans sign your post -- looks so much better than one of those "unsigned" tags! So Morrison was at Midtown Comics yesterday? East Side or West Side? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Try reducing the saturation; that won't affect the hue.
Since you're replacing an existing infobox image, yeah, I'd say go ahead and start a discussion. I'll certainly second you — the existing image has a ton of background clutter. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Hard to tell without a side-by-side comparison, but it seems less red than I remember. Nice picture, by the way -- looks almost like a professional portrait. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Naw, naw, it looks fine. Darn sight better than the one in the article now! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Brent Spiner

Thank you for your message regarding my alteration to this page. I am new to editing and simply wished to remove an inaccurate statement! I understand your comments re lack of source information, I now can't remember where I saw the source information originally! However, I was concerned that Wikipedia showed Gabrielle Chana as being this actor's spouse. As far as I can see from her website, she is a rather 'keen' fan - www.gabriellechana.com I note that the section on 'spouse' on this page has now been removed. Many thanks for your advice, I will read up on editing! :-) NellieSnez (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Approach to editing

[5] "And if that's the case, the person adding or re-adding the material can do that search." If your approach to editing is to remove easily verifiable material in the hopes that someone else will fix your removals, then you are doing the project a disservice. In this case, the material was even sourced, and had just been vandalized by an IP. If you could not check the source provided, and could not bother to ask on the talk page, and were unwilling or unable to perform even the simplest of google searches as basic research, then you failed to perform even the most basic of due diligence, and you shouldn't be removing information from articles. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"It is not my job to going cleaning up other people's messes". If so, then neither is it anybody else's job to fix your messes. Your approach to editng - hack information and hope someone else fixes your messes, is destructive. You claim you "saw no evidence of any vandalism"? Then you didn't look much, because [6] was the edit immediately prior to yours. "I used that site's search engine to search for her name, and found nothing on it" - then you didn't search the site appropriately, and failed to ask or inquire about it. And you apparently failed to do even a cursory google search. The information was sourced, easily verifiable by other sources, and recently vandalized. By removing the vandalized content, apparently without checking sources, you are enabling vandals, and in effect, you removed valid, sourced information from an article. Since you have defended your actions, I must presume that you have done this in the past and fully intend to continue removing sourced and/or easily verifiable information from articles. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Kudos

Just wanted to congratulate you on Detroit Steel, a well written, well referenced new comic book character article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Its equally well written, although it could use more third party sources, the only one is now dead.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I've actually been watching Fear Itself (comics), you should be commended on how you've handled the article. If I might make some suggestions, I think the reception section might be long for its own sub-article per WP:SPLIT. Bravo, I think that might be the first and only time I've said about a comic book article. Just summarize the reception in the parent article and include a hat-note directing readers to the main-article. Sort of like Production of Watchmen or Themes in Avatar. The only thing I am concerned about is the use of non-free images to illustrate the plot, its okay in the reception section where critical commentary is provided.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Pawn Stars

Hey! I don't have to create a new heading. Kudos on this edit. I originally added the info 'cause it seem to imply that Rick took advantage of Chumley by buying 1/2 Chum's company for $5,000. I just thought it an interesting fact. On seeing your edit, I realized that my orginal post was too nitty gritty of details to add about a real person in a character roll in an article about a TV Show concerning a pawn shop. Your edit of my post was spot on. Keep up the good work. -- Utmoatr (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ray Comfort

Regarding, "Undid revision (partially) by Sean.hoyland. You didn't just remove world net daily sources, you also removed RDF sources as well"...yes, it was deliberate and because of WP:BLPSPS. Also, I think unless a reliable secondary source cares about this there's no need for Wikipedia to cover it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Show

Thanks for correcting my really bad wording here. I didn't mean to write it in a accusing tone; just couldn't find the right words. Cheers. — Yk ʏк yƙ  talk ~ contrib 02:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Dr.Drew

Hello Dr. Drew did fail a RFA at en.wiki, why did you undo my edits? There are sources for this indeed. 69.175.77.42 (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter & The Half Blood Prince (Film) Question

Hello Nightscream, a recent post on reddit.com suggests that the scene in Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince in which a passage being read in the 'Advanced Potion Making' book was lifted directly from Wikipedia. Through some research, the member Dark_Jester found that you had been the one who made the last edit on the Wiki page before the movie started filming. I was just curious if you had any link to the film, or you were unaware of any previous dealing between Warner Brothers & Wikipedia. I hope I'm not coming off as trolling, I just wanted to ask. :) Zagman76 (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Pedro Zamora pic

You have great memory! Will do I will write a note now. Callelinea (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob Liefeld

I am new to the internets. User:200.92.120.8 01:09, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am new to the internets. I was trying to write the way you internet people, or trolls, write on websites. I thought "tHiS" style of writing would please you, but then I realized you like Rob Liefeld, and that's just sad. Why do you patrol his Wikipedia entry? I mean, that's just pathetic. I know you're a nobody (illustrator) from Union City, NJ, but that's no excuse. User:200.92.120.8 03:15, August 7, 2011

Eddie Brock

Can you just let me know, because I don't really know much about his origin, I just read ...299 and 300 I believe of Amazing Spider-Man. It gives a rundown in there of Brock's origin with Sin-Eater, is that meant to be his first appearance then? Because it read like Spider-Man knew him. I just want to know so I know which issues to read to improve that article.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Right OK, I didn't know that. The way I'd been told I always though he had existed as a character for a while before becoming Venom. Turns out he just shows up and Peter knows him from his picture. That's pretty lame but at least I know now, was struggling to find out why I couldn't find information about him prior to 300.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks Nightscream. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Marvel Entertainment

I'm not sure where this would go on the Admin noticeboards, and I know the Mediation Cabal request-page is severely backed up, so I thought it would be prudent to give a neutral head's up that an admin should keep on eye on Marvel Entertainment for a few days, in order to prevent a possible edit war. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Pertinent links: After a week and public notices on three pages including two Project pages, three disinterested editors, with no connection to creating either page, held a unanimous consensus for a merge, as noted here at 23:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC). Admin Athaenara signed off on the merger here. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:MammothJump.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MammothJump.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:MAD223.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MAD223.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User: DANE YOUSSEF

FYI, you just blocked DANE YOUSSEF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for adding unsourced material to an article absolutely full of unsourced material. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Hello, Mr. Farrand, I wrote you a letter several years ago (in the '90s) concerning ur Star Trek book, and you sent me some Nitpickers' Guild material. I'm half-Italian, btw.

So another administarator who's a skeptic. R all Wkpd administrators so biased or is it just most of them?

I did not put personal opinions in my edits and the source I cited is reliable.--BlueRider12 18:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell (talk • contribs)

I did sign my message, but I don't know how to start a new section. I started my message by asking if u were Phil Farand but changed it, I should have gone with that instead.

The way that ur action was biased is stated in my posting in the 9/11 talk page and above.

I am also an atheist btw but i don't like the word because of all the negative connotations so I say Stratonician instead.--BlueRider12 18:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell (talk • contribs)

So ur saying Bin Laden acted alone. What evidence do you have for this?
I sign my messages using the tool bar and they show up signed on my screen, why does it not work?--BlueRider12 11:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell (talk • contribs)
You maintain, like the article, that 9/11 was done by a lone perpetrator but there is no evidence for this and that conspiracies can't happen, which is obviously false, too. Many Wikipedia articles are controlled by biased groups or cliques (see Signpost, which claims an anti-Mormon group controls articles on the Mormons) and the article in question and the article Conspiracy Theories are 2 of these.̃̃̃̃ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell (talk • contribs) 03:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This is my last comment here at least as I tried just typing 4 tildas the last time but that didn't work either, and it would serve no purpose to continue discussing the matter anyways.

At least you admit that there are conspiracies and that 9/11 was a conspiracy, however, the idea that the Ameriican government was not complicitous in the case of 9/11 and that the JFK assassination was not a conspiracy is just plain wrong and is proven wrong scientifically and is very clear to any one who is familiar with the evidence and isn't in denial.

Also, anyone who refers to people who believe 9/11 was a larger conspiracy in such negative terms as is often done is an extremist, is doing projection, and is seriously mentally disturbed.

The article in question does imply that 9/11 was not a conspiracy and that the official version is right because it doesn't state that it was and in fact states that it wasn't in the section I corrected but which was reverted, Non-Conspiracy Theories.

Thanks for your responses and goodbye.--BlueRider12 16:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell (talk • contribs)

My goodness no, I certainly was not referring to you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. You had a link to 1 of your comments and to the left was a comment which is the kind I was referring to, but not by you.

But I have pointed out the biases in the article.

Regards, --BlueRider12 00:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell (talk • contribs)

COIN

Hi! You were unofficially mentioned here at WP:COIN by a user that's new to the system. I thought you should be notified and after a quick search of this page, don't see that you have been. I don't think it's anything to worry about but don't think that someone who has been editing as long as you have should be talked about at COIN without knowing about it. OlYellerTalktome 18:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Alexandra Govere thanks

The Good Heart Barnstar The Good Heart Barnstar
Thanks for expanding Alexandra Govere even though you nominated it for deletion. You're one of the good ones. GRuban (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Real World: San Diego (2011)

I have a bunch on info to update on the Real World San Diego 2011 page, but can't do so as you got it protected. Check this out: http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0423138/0423138.shtm It is about the owner of the house, he is not a celebrity but a business man. I'll update it but you need to un-protect it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrett4g (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi I really don't care to learn about the appropriate way to comment on this. I was just trying to help. If you read the articles, you will learn: 1) the house is not owned by a unnamed celebrity. It is owned by Anthony Renda, a business man 2) Anthony Renda was charged and convicted of making a magnetic "fuel saving" device for vehicles that did absolutely nothing, under the name "Fuel Max" or the like 3) He ran this business out of this house previously 4) He was charged and ordered to pay $4,200,000.00 in penalties for his false acquisitions 5) There was some type of mortgage or deed restriction put on this house to pay back the money, located at 5212 Chelsea Street, La Jolla.

There is a lot more extremely interesting information on there, but this is the "cliff notes".

Signed, G$ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrett4g (talk • contribs) 17:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Eddie Brock

Very well I'll cite the information, but once I've cited it please stop removing my edits. I know exactly what im describing as i have all the source information sitting directly infront of me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.22.186 (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons category box

Please actually read the instructions associated with Template:Commonscat, which clearly states, "Do not place this template in a section all by itself." If there are no other links, we use the inline form, not the sidebox. Don't revert me again. Yworo (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You twice changed {{commons category-inline}} to {{commonscategory}}. The former inserts a bulleted line entry. The latter inserts a sidebox. There are no other links in the external links section, that is, it is empty except for the commons link, so a sidebox is incorrect. Inline is correct. You knew just what you were doing, as the comment on your reverting my correction of the mistake said "Proper commons link." The link was already proper, you made it improper by changing it into a sidebox in an otherwise empty section. Yworo (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Mike Manning

Can you please stop changing the page I been working for days and hours. I have been checking on other pages, websites everything. I know what im writing and if Wikipedia doesnt say theirs anything rong with what im writing im going to keep working on the page so please stop. Everytime Wiki said that theirs are mistakes I correct them and right now ur the only 1 that says theirs something rong & ur not Wikipedia ur just like me. Someone that just wants to work on there pages. Please under stand and dont get mad if dosent say theirs anything rong( and it dosent) im goin to keep on writing what im writing

sorry about the spelling im from Uruguay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiagokdasilva1 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

ok than can you then instead of just saying whats wrong how about you try to edit or improve whats wreaten instead of just simple irasing it. Everything I've writing is correct and comes with a source. Most of this informacion has been taken from his own OFFICIAL page. and what is ur problem do you even know what i mean when i write that Wikipedia accepts what im writing¿ ? Santiagokdasilva1 (talk) 19:57, August 25, 2011

Hey I wanted to say thanks for editing manning's page and sorry if I said something that boderd u im new here and im just trying to do my best in creating and editing and if u harent edit all that u did the page might have already been gone sooo........thanks and sorry. I just hope that it dosent get deleted now, it would really be a downer for me.Santiagokdasilva1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

So what do i do so that the information can be writin in the page? I have the info about the theatre shows but i don't have a reference to it or a good source what should I do¿? Can U help¿ I found this info in [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiagokdasilva1 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I dirent know that U current write someones maiden surname just because they never titled them as their surname I mean Beyincé is Knowles maiden surname she has saided herself and so has her mother(and her mothers page thouse say Tina Knowles née Beyincé). The same gose for Kris Jenner, but oh well I guess that since theres no source thats that. Also Susana gímenez' name is María Susana Giménez Aubert Sanders, but they don't let me write Sanders. I mean her maiden surname is Aubert-Sanders but for some reason U cant write it. People with only 2 names and surnames arent that normal anymore people now hav 3 last names or 3 first names. People used to be like I don't know Lilian Bernasconi Bernasconi, and that was it now you hear names like: Nicole Prescovia Elikolani Valiente Scherzinger or Knox Léon Jolie-Pitt. My mom's name is Rozzanna Loreley Villarrubia Basalo of Da Silva, and my dad is just simple Eduardo Da Silva. I like long names anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiagokdasilva1 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

sorry bout towelie it was so funny ..

sorry bout that couldnt help it ..i couldnt believe such a heated serious debate errupted over towelie hahaa ok i wont do it again sorry about that =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cam01235 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Touré's surname

Hi this is Toure. I don't know how to do these talk backs the way one is supposed to. Someone is repeatedly putting my last name on my page. This is vandalism. You specifically said I can change my page to protect against vandalism. It is specifically and clearly stated on the page to not add my last name. I understand that I'm not supposed to be editing my own page and have not done that since we first discussed it but in this situation I would expect that you'd be protecting me as this is a clear violation. It is stated in no uncertain terms that my last name should not be added. The last time someone was adding it they were blocked from editing and the note was added that the last name should never be added to the page. Can you help me keep the page from being vandalised by having my last name added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.54.246 (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I am Toure. I understand explicitly that I am not to make edits to my page except to clean vandalism from the page. It was explicitly judged after a 2006 edit war that my last name should not be added to the page because it violately BLP policy. A WIki admin wrote "As you can see from the discussion on the BLP noticeboard, it is believed that Touré's last name is not relievent to his notability, so there is no need for it to be put into the article. Thε Halo Θ 16:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)"

Despite this clear judgment I now have someone repeatedly adding the name back onto the page each time I remove it (which I think is reasonably considered vandalism because it has been judged that it should not be added). I do not think an edit war (that has already been adjudicated) is in anyone's interest. Can you please, please help me resolve this issue immediately? Someone named Jeff is repeatedly adding the last name back onto the page even though it has been decided that the name should not appear on the page. Can you please help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.54.246 (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. If you had included http://enwp.org?diff=75723103 or mentioned this information earlier, such as in the Edit Summaries or in a post to my user talk page, this unpleasantness could have been avoided.   — Jeff G.  ツ 15:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Contact Info

Nightscream ~ My contact info is susangerbic@yahoo.com. Didn't see anything come though on iig info. How odd? I'm very public about who I am but I'm not sure putting my email up on the SWIFT page is such a great idea with all the weird comments from some of these off-topic people. I'm in the process of changing my email (I just gave you the new one) and can't get blogspot to do the right one so that's why it isn't published there yet. Sgerbic (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Howard Bloom

Hi Nightscream, how's your day going? I'm planning to greatly expand this article (that's why I added new categories) however if you keep reverting my edits then I'll just not bother and go elsewhere. If you wouldn't mind just giving me a day or two to expand it I would really appreciate it (as other fans of Bloom will appreciate it too) Or of course you are welcome to add more to the article with me. If after a day there is nothing there or your not happy with my edits then you can revert it back, does that sound fair? Thanks. Jason (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Right on Nightscream, thanks a lot, I apprecitate it! Oh, I didn't mean to insinuate that other people have no life, haha! Im sorry if I insulted you by posting that - It's just that I've been locked away in my room on my computer for three weeks straight and becoming addictive to this silly website. Wow, it really ropes you in doesn't it? Anyway It does feel great to contribute I must say; not to mention that since I've been editing articles it's given me a much deeper understanding of Wikipedia and how it functions. Im using a edit count I stole from User:Bgwhite's page here. Well, have a great night. Jason (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship of User:Thisthat2011

Per the relevant ANI discussion, a topic ban has been enacted on this editor - see User_talk:Thisthat2011#Topic_ban. A number of editors including yourself offered to mentor the user during their topic ban, hence this notice. I have informed all these editors and will place a list of those willing to mentor on the user's talkpage. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 23:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to know how to go about this. I will be glad to have clarity first of all about time constraints on your side, so that I should not infringe on those. As also, some tips on how to be nice to you!इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 15:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Nightscream, for taking this on and thanks also to Thisthat for approaching with a positive manner what is a rather unfortunate situation. TT, I think you have it in you to be a valuable part of the English Wikipedia community, I really do. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Sitush, I appreciate this.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 19:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
This comment is a little worrying. I hope it does not mean that there may be some deliberate logged-out contributions. - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Can I reply here without breaking ban conditions?इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 17:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Further to the above & to the comment left on TT2011's talk page by Nightscream today. Thisthat2011, you enquired at the time of your ban and were informed then that you are not permitted any involvement in India-related issues, which includes article space, talk space, categories and indeed everywhere else. If I remember correctly, this was explained to you by the admin who enacted the ban on behalf of the community who was, IIRC, Salvio. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I apologise. It looks like it was someone else who enquired, but in your case you were told here. You are of course welcome to contribute in other areas and by doing so, and engaging in with mentors, it could be that your topic ban would be lifted in due course. - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Red Hulk vs. Omegex

I'm just letting you know that I have did the same referencing for Red Hulk's encounters with Zero/One and Black Fog for when it comes to his fight with Omegex in a three-part comic. Some fans have considered Omegex to be similar to the Destroyer of Asgard but with a deadly power source, the life force of those it killed. Off topic of that, we should find a way to catch up on the tie-in books since our last chat. Rtkat3 (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

True. When I meant by tie-ins, I was hoping that we would find info to help spice up the tie-ins to Fear Itself before the storyline reaches it's conclusion. There hasn't been an update in that since your last chat to me on it. Rtkat3 (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, dude

You're in Hoboken, I'm in NYC ... guess we both can't sleep and went Wiki'ing! Good seeing your signature, Night!--Tenebrae (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Got a press pass. When it gets closer to con time (man, it feels like the last one just ended, but the next one's next month), I'll figure out a way to contact you under my name and maybe we can meet there and compare notes and whatnot. Could be fun.
I'm creating an article now — probably just a glorified stub — on Al Hewetson, who was editor of Skywald Publications after Sol Brodsky and created a bunch of cult-favorite horror-comics magazines. Yeah, believe me, I know Wiki-addiction...! --Tenebrae (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
How do you get a press pass? Do you tell 'em you cover the con for Wikipedia like I do? As for contacting me, you can always enable emailing, at least temporarily. And yeah, we could meet up. I might be going there with cousin, who expressed an interest in going when I showed him the photo gallery on my user page when we were down the shore this past weekend. Nightscream (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Naw, I'm actually a member of the press! But you're certainly a member of the academic press, with the important photos you take for articles here. I'll figure out how to enable emailing and get back to you that way. Cool. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Banshees

Um...

IIRC, by the Project level naming, Banshee (Theresa Cassidy) isn't the proper title. It would be Theresa Cassidy - single character with multiple code-names. That would make moving thing unneeded.

- J Greb (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutral notice

An editor with a recent history of disruptive editing and a block this month has returned to make the same edits at Marvel Comics and graphic novel. To prevent an edit-war, this is a neutral invitation to join the discussion at User talk:TheRoD1988 and to visit those articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! Preference changed. Let's see how it works.... --Tenebrae (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Union City, New Jersey area and demographics

In reviewing some of the content of the Union City, New Jersey, there is (and was) a tremendous mix of values for area and population. Area was variously listed as 1.3, 1.27 and 1.255341 square miles; A Census Bureau source says 1.27 and a source was added to support it. With the availability of data directly from the 2010 Census, it makes more sense to compare data from the 2000 Census to 2010, rather than to the 2007 American Community Survey, which is both an estimate and out of date. A lot of the sources used for population changes are merely quoting census statistics, and we should try to limit the sources to the most direct, unless there is some fact in an article that is not verifiable directly from the Census Bureau. Alansohn (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Shermer and The Believing Brain

It's my bed time reading right now. I saw it at the library and grabbed it. A fascinating read into the subject and the author. Alansohn (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I just returned the book to the library. It was a truly enjoyable and thought-provoking experience. Alansohn (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Fear Itself Wording response and more

I understand what you are saying there. In the meantime, you might want to brush up on the recent tie-ins. Rtkat3 (talk) 10:20, September 19 2011 (UTC)

Well you might want to catch up on them before the storyline ends. Rtkat3 (talk) 8:32, September 19 2011 (UTC)
I just read your comment the other day. I think you and I have been the only ones to edit on this storyline lately since no one else has contributed anything. Most of the recent updates from me came from recaps in the previews seen on Comic Book Resources. For one of them, I had no idea the worshipers of Svartalfheim made a golem from mud in order to attack Iron Man as he was making weapons for his allies. Rtkat3 (talk) 5:41, September 23 2011 (UTC)
Gravity's powers and Hardball's powers have been combining against each other during their fight which caused an earthquake. The golem from the last Iron Man issue was from the latest issue's recap. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:06, September 24 2011 (UTC)
I hope you remember the plot of the recent issue of Invincible Iron Man. Now you'll have to brush up on later tie-ins. I hear that the final issue of "Fear Itself" will be split into "Fear Itself" #7, "Fear Itself" #7.1, and "Fear Itself" #7.2. Rtkat3 (talk) 12:31, September 24 2011 (UTC)

Marguerite Van Cook

Hello, I hope you are not offended but I changed the image. I built her page and I am engaged in punk and Clash material. Also, I work on the East Village arts. From the picture you put up, I can tell it is taken during recovery from a serious illness (fairly recent). I have put something that represents the Innocents and might be kinder. Please accept this change in the good spirit that it is intended. I have been working on early punk women and I am a little invested in the period getting its due on top of that (: Can we let posterity have her at her most iconic? Please (EstherLaver (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC))

A barnstar for you!

The Minor barnstar
For copyediting references, which can't be any fun whatsoever! Cheers boss! Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 20:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
For your ongoing work maintaining the Palisades Center article. AGreenEarth (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Ghriscore

Please ban him. See [8], his latest stupidity.--Milowent • talkblp-r 00:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about it either, but based on the game's website, they only just released Episode 40, so this is a fake episode 41 that he added, replete with references to Charlie Sheen, etc. I first became aware of this user last year when he was vandalizing articles related to Chris Gore, who his username is meant to mock. Hes some comic-book-indie-movie nerd, I am pretty sure, who is just trolling for his own basement-dwelling amusement.--Milowent • talkblp-r 00:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, all around.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Toure

When did Toure say that he doesnt want his surname on his wikipedia biography. And it what WBLP rules does it say that the subject is allowed to determine that? I thought the rule is that info on here must be verified from reputable sources. There are reputable sources that state his surname. Thanks. 173.79.75.65 (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Nightscream this is Toure. Small request: is it possible to delete the mention on my last name at the bottom of the discussion page about the Toure page? Having it sit there somewhat counteracts the effort behind Wiki deciding not to publish it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.54.246 (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have responded on the article's talk page. Nightscream (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Since the matter of whether to include Touré's surname has come up again, can you cast your vote here? If you're new to this matter, and not familiar with the arguments for and against doing so, you can read them just above that section, or click here. The discussion is of considerable length, but not too long to get a gist of the primary arguments for and against. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream Nightscream (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Nightscream, Thanks for letting me know about Toure. i had checked the page repeatedly but then got discouraged when Jimbo deleted it because of an emotional email. I have added my thoughts. I hope you are doing well. Thank You. 173.79.75.65 (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Response to The New 52 question

Because J Greb mass-merged it to List of minor DC Comics characters. Rtkat3 (talk) 8:53, October 7 2011 (UTC)

Holy Terror: I am apparently being censored from responding

User:Friginator seems to frenetically attempt to censor out my reply due to personal libertarian political affiliation... Or at least I don't see why else, unless he is in some way connected to Frank Miller. And as far as I can see he is not an admin, so that can't be the reason.

See here and here. I don't think that I was remotely out of line, and remained very polite, especially considering that I was called Rorschach in the Talk, and Frank then explicitly based a raving terrorist that he distorted and tortured to death on that, and named it after my internet handle. Is this apparently agenda-driven censoring something that you could help to prevent, or at least clear up? Thanks in advance. Dave (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you had left comments on User:David A's talk page about this situation, and wanted to let you know that I've opened a discussion at the ANI noticeboard about the subsequent edits to the talk archive. I'd appreciate your input, as this whole thing has me feeling dizzy at this point. Cheers! Friginator (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your revert at Erich von Däniken

I don't understand why you reverted my removal of a dead npov tag with an edit summary "Revert. The "Claims of alien influence on Earth" and "Popularity" sections are completely unreferenced, so the article is obviously in need of cites.)" The citations required tag at the top of the article was not touched. What I did had nothing to do with that. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I assumed it must have been something like that. I've got that t-shirt too. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Soranik Natu

The article Soranik Natu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and, without reception and significance in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, the topic of the article is not suitable for Wikipedia as a stand-alone article since it falls into WP:IINFO.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Green Man (comics)

The article Green Man (comics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and, without reception and significance in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, the topic of the article is not suitable for Wikipedia as a stand-alone article since it falls into WP:IINFO.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Isamot Kol

The article Isamot Kol has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and, without reception and significance in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, the topic of the article is not suitable for Wikipedia as a stand-alone article since it falls into WP:IINFO.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Solomonic solution

Nice solution! Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Art Adams/Frank Cho

What's the point of having two headings in a row? You click on Bibliography and check the interior work, Covers only - well, "covers only" work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.163.36.115 (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, so you'd better stay with a version with SUBHEADINGS rather than one that has twice as more (and more correct) information? And how are these notes "redudant"? A collaborator, the publisher and a year, it's simple and practical. I thought Wikipedia is an information source, not some kind of exposition or something. 178.163.36.31 07:48, October 12, 2011 (edit) (undo)

I'm talking about Adam Hughes' bibliography, you reverted my edit saying it has "redudant" notes and not enough subheadings, while the version you kept shows third (at best) of his interior work and a ridiculous amount of cover work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.163.36.31 (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Gallium

Sure, M can be changed, but the reference to a TV series won't do in a science article, and the linebreaks aren't a reason for revert. Thus please reconsider. Finding a proper ref. might help. Materialscientist (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

How can we verify your addition? What is the actual source of that statement? (surely not the TV series). How should we understand "it can assist in the fight against drug-resistant strains of malaria"? Even a child who kills mosquitoes can "assist" in that fight :-). Seriously, science can't rely on such remarks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The second ref [9] you added is better, but it again contains no link to the original result. The problem is that no health related results can be accepted on wikipedia without proper clinical studies - this is not my invention, but of WP:MED. Materialscientist (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
See WP:MEDRS, particularly this part. Further, your sources do not clearly identify their primary evidence and its details and are are not qualified to act as as secondary sources (reviewing the primary ones). The health matters in element articles fall under WP:MED, even though they are normally written by WP:CHEM people. User:SandyGeorgia is one of the best people to discuss the sourcing matter. Materialscientist (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
As I understand, you've read the WP:MEDRS guidelines, conclude that your sources didn't cite other sources within them, and use those sources to reference a scientific fact on developing a cure for malaria. On what grounds? Can you state the actual facts, how they were deduced, on what patients and statistics, and were they peer reviewed and where? By the way, they used a complex gallium-containing compound. Did they examine the role of gallium in it, how and with what conclusions? Materialscientist (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, policy games aside. Your source, David Bradley (TV show is nameless to me) says that gallium, "cuckolds iron during haemozoin formation leading to a build-up of the toxic haem" This reads as a misrepresentation of the mechanism - Ga leads (cuckolds?) to accumulation of some "toxic haem"? It is supposed to bind iron and suppress haemozoin formation, making the mosquitoes unhappy. This research was reported at least in 1997 and thus should have been re-evaluated. I will check references to this paper tomorrow at work (this will tell its acceptance by scientists) but for now I could not find anything in Google books on this MR045, and this is what worries me. Materialscientist (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It is great that you started questioning sources in some FAs, and you are welcome to raise specific concerns about those references on the talk pages of those articles; I know some editors who can reply to that better than I. However, this does not address my concerns about your addition to gallium. Materialscientist (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Note that element articles are attributed to core WP articles, are highly ranked (mostly B and GA level) and closely watched. Gallium is relatively weak among them. I am still not 100% sure about Ga and malaria; this research is mentioned, but much less than expected (number of citations is low for the topic). WP:MEDRS is correct in that popular media is not a reliable source for science claims, but it gives a hint where to look. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

References

Feel free to use <!-- --> to hid references but please do not removed them. It makes it harder for those of use who come along to verify where the content has come from. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Removing the refs just causes problems down the road.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sser talk:Cmattina

A tag has been placed on Sser talk:Cmattina, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for sanction

Hello,

On my Watchlist, I have previously noted edits without Edit summaries by User:Searcher 1990. I messaged him/her last month on his/her talk page User talk:Searcher 1990, requesting that he/she not negate the usefulness of my Watchlist by failing to supply Edit summaries. Today, a fresh batch of his/her Edits without summaries popped up on my Watchlist. It is a tiresome waste of time for me to wade through Edit histories to check on his/her veracity.

Also, since my polite request, two other contributors have made similar requests of Searcher 1990, as he/she has changed articles of interest to them without supplying cites, or created citeless new articles from unknown sources.

On 6 January 2011, you warned Searcher 1990 that any further behavior of this sort would lead to banning. I am requesting that you use your powers as an administrator to ban Searcher 1990 for the good of Wikipedia.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Union City as most populated in Americas

Looking again at the text reinserted in this edit, can we support the statement that Union City was the "most densely populated city... in the Americas"? I can find plenty that say most populated city in the U.S., but I haven't found anything to support the "in the Americas" portion of the lead. Alansohn (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Your post on my discussion site

Hi,

thanks for the post. It looks really nice. I know that "usually" (or if you are very correct) always a reference is needed. I also know the standard commands that you need often, like ref and ref name for refs that are used more than once. Also references / if a site does not have any reference at all (many small articles do not have a reference) or small, br and so on... not very much different to a Forum the basics, only got some problems with creating tables which look well, but maybe I will learn this too in the future. I'm active in the German Wikipedia (~600 edits there). I just updated around 100 articles about US Cities in the german Wikipedia. I updated the population datas to the most recent US 2010 Census Data. It's available in the German Wiki too for the cities, but not so easy to find for the metro/urban regions. On the other Way I use the English Wikipedia often if no German article is available (not soo often, we are lucky, got a quite good wiki, can't compare it with indian or chinese, but with other european. Polish Wiki for example is very small. But in most cases I read the German article and than read the English one to compare, that's the only reason why I made some edits when I saw something wrong.

I regret that my edit had to be reverted, since the source/reference was already in the article, I think even in the same line (the link to cities by population density). So I thought it is clear, if you check the list that Guttenberg or how the town was called is the us city with the highest population density. Sorry for mistakes, thats why I only change numbers or very easy sentences here, because I can't speak the language really and can't create a nice section decorated with some nice sentences here like I can in German. So sorry for the Mistake. Greetings from Berlin, Kilon22 (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Btw, found a ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/13/nyregion/briefing-crowds-in-the-cities.html

Four municipalities in Hudson County were the most densely populated places in New Jersey in 2000, according to recently released census figures. Guttenberg, Union City, West New York and Hoboken all have a population density greater than New York City, which has 26,402.88 people per square mile. Guttenberg, the most densely populated, has a population density of 56,012 people per square mile. It is followed by Union City, with 52,977.8 people per square mile; West New York, with 44,995.1 people; and Hoboken with 30,239.2 people. Abhi Raghunathan

Don't worry I'm not going to edit the article again, it is not very good for your account when your edits are reverted. I mean I don't have any rights anyway I think but with a special number of reverts you don't get your status automatic (after 250 or 300 edits in at least some months, 500 edits and so on, and many points (no more reverted edits than 6 or so... for example). Kilon22 (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Persistent vandal

Hi, Night. There's a persistent vandal at Marvel Comics, making non-constructive and policy/guideline-vio edits. I've made specific comments in my edit summaries, I've noted on his page to discuss, and he still seems to be behaving maliciously. It's 190.2.202.79. Hoping you can take a look. With regards--Tenebrae (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Aerial photo in article about the island of Ischia

Hi, please check, if this picture is really teh island of Ischia with castello Aragonese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.64.134.241 (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The New 52

My edit was sourced as batgirl number vol 4 #1, as in that issue it says that she WAS paralyzed and mysteriously healed, thus there is no POV on it, nor is there POV on the fact Cain and Brown(the two characters Wheeler complained about suddenly being erased) might not have been erased. While my grammar may not be on point, don't accuse me of POV edits please, especially when the fact is the facts say differently. -71.202.72.88 (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Also I was simply pointing out the fact that he was wrong not arguing with source, thus changing how the portrayal of female characters in DC isn't as bad as he said it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.72.88 (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't syn anything I simply said and I quote from my first edit "it is unknown" which is is, I'm not aruging with the source not making Syn just saying "it's not said either way". Also "thanks" doesn't constitute as it's own sentence("again, please familiarize yourself with those policies. Also, please don't forget to sign your talk page posts. Thanks."), don't be a Nazi unless you like to be Nazi'd. Also what constitutes it as a personal view point or analysis? my actual view point on the subject wheeler brought up is "who gives a crap", but I didn't say that I gave the correct information regarding the subject using the actual material DC printed. That material which says "Barbara was paralyzed but recovered" and it never says Cain or brown never were batgirl so saying "it's unknown" leaves it open-ended to be tied up by DC later. Also, yeah I flubbbed up on signing sue me. -71.202.72.88 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Syn as short for synthesis, also the fact the comic doesn't show and the critic/source doesn't know means it's unstated, he obviously didn't know Barbara would be still paralyzed and jumped to the conclusion it had been totally retconned. Let me ask yo if you have have no source that has a definitive answer to weather the character is or isn't out in the universe what do you put those characters as, do you label it nothing? however until the material quoted totally negates wheeler's statement fully I'll leave it alone, though the first issue already says "she was paralyzed just recovered after 3 years." which negates their complaints about retconning that.-71.202.72.88 (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Nightscream/Archive 7! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Revert re F1 race in Weehawken

Regarding this edit of the article for Weehawken, New Jersey, the proposed Formula One race for 2013 has received widespread coverage in previous days. While no source was provided, hundreds are available and could have been added. Why not just add a source or tag it as needing a source, rather than reverting material that could be easily sourced? Alansohn (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Experienced editors like us would never add something like this without a source; it's just not the way we work. An edit like this is typically the work of a good-faith newbie, adding valid factual non-controversial information to an article, but completely clueless about the fact that sources are required, let alone having any knowledge of how to add that reference. In cases like this one, I would also leave a note for the editor, but be more likely to add the source myself or tag as citation needed. I may not be able to convince you to change your mind in all cases, but non-controversial edits like the one made here are probably less bitey if the material is left in as is. I always appreciate your meticulous work on Hudson County articles in terms of editing and sourcing, and hope that my comments here are perceived as food for thought rather than criticism, as there is no clear right or wrong way to deal with such cases. Alansohn (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

John Stossel

The adjective "Progressive" appears in regards to FAIR later, unsourced, in the same document. Additionally, most adjectives do not come with inline citations, as it would clutter up the page. 98.204.116.99 (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Addendum - it's also on the FAIR page itself. Also unsourced is the adjective "Conservative" in regards to the Media Research Center's membership and founders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.116.99 (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't tell me what to do!

First of all, I can do whatever I want in my talk page. There is no rule against removing warnings. The warnings are still archived in the edit history. Second, Cartman clearly had a split personality disorder. It wasn't the toy that "killed" the other toys. Even Kyle said he "killed" his own toys. Third, I can say whatever I want in the edit summary so people know why I reverted the edits. It prevents sandbox warnings. Finally, spare me your smile. Thanks. Have a great day.--98.221.192.218 (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Mike Diana

obviously i have a problem with inline citations, thanks for editing correctly fyi, I've worked with Mike Diana for the past 12 years, I set up his original site was at my website, testicle.com (http://www.testicle.com/mikediana.html), but his official site is now at http://www.mikedianacomix.com, both links go to same place, so no problemo there. did you set up the Mike Diana Wikipedia? good job! thanks! Jefe aka Johnny Chiba — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefesativa (talk • contribs) 14:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Real World

Hello Nightscream. I noticed that there has been some recent issues regarding "unsourced BLP material" on The Real World article (I have that article on my watchlist), and I was thinking of reinstating all of the material that had been removed by user Nikkimaria, but I really want to avoid getting involved in an edit war (I've had my account blocked before for edit warring). I did reinstate two items on the "Coping With Illness" section (regarding Paula and Colie) with sources, but it looks like Nikkimaria really messed up the article. Thank you. DPH1110 (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)DPH1110

Ta!

Re this. :) Regards, 220.101.30 talk\edits(aka 220.101) 14:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Guay

Hey guy, I was wondering if you wanted to add one of your new pics to the article for Rebecca Guay? I know you have pics for a bunch of artists (was also noticing you working on Steve Ellis earlier today) so you might be working on getting pics up over time, but I figured I would ask. :) BOZ (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL! No, it's just that I noticed you uploading a new pic to a page I was watching (Dennis Calero?) and decided to browse your gallery to see if there was anyone I was particularly interested in. If you were still uploading at the time, I'll take another look and see.  :) BOZ (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing tests

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, even if you intend to fix them later, as you did with your edits to Mariska Hargitay here and here. Such edits are considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. My nephew played a joke and edited the page. Thank You. --Editor2205 (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Image question

Hey Nightscream. I'm wondering why you didn't upload your copy of Mariska's pic to the original image page? —Mike Allen 22:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm I was not aware of that! That's good to know. Thanks. —Mike Allen 03:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard Dreyfuss

The information on the Richard Dreyfuss page has some errors. First he was NOT made a Mason "at sight". He was made a Mason in "due and ancient form". He received all three degrees of Craft Masonry, in one day. He is a member of Potomac Lodge #5 ,Washington DC. I know, because I was personally there, and witnessed the entire ceremony.

I would like for the wiki article to display the correct information. I have looked around ,but I have not been able to find any "reliable" informational source, other than my own eyes and ears.

Is there a way to get the article corrected? Cemab4y (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the current information:
On June 10, 2011, Dreyfuss was made a Master Mason "at sight" by the Grand Master of Masons of the District of Columbia at the Washington DC Scottish Rite building, as well as a 32nd Degree Scottish Rite Mason and is a member of the Valley of the District of Columbia, Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite (end quote).
I was present at the ceremony. Richard Dreyfuss was not made a mason 'at sight'. Therefore, this posting is in error.
I would like to add, that he was made a member of Potomac Lodge#5, F&AM, Grand Lodge of Washington DC.
I do not know how to get the documentation, I have contacted the secretary at Potomac lodge. Cemab4y (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I add a little more on Identiy Crisis

Feel free to make more edits.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP problems

Upon review of the contentious content you restored in this edit, the source actually makes no reference to Melissa Padrón's occupation. I have removed it again as a BLP violation. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In light of Ponyo's edit, I ask you to reconsider your block of the IP that, it turns out, was correctly removing a BLP problem. Risker (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, please do. The IP may have gone about it the wrong way, but the removal is legitimate and certainly any concerns regarding "protecting Wikipedia" that led to the block are now moot. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 01:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • (Moved from my talk page to keep this discussion together. Risker (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC))
  • The IP editor in question was not removing a BLP problem "correctly". The editor was removing valid, sourced information, despite warnings to cease, which is the not the correct way to proceed. The correct way to proceed would have been to contact MTV over the matter of their webpage (which it they did only after the block), to contact an editor or community liaison on Wikipedia over the article, or begin a talk page discussion. Instead, the editor removed sourced content, did not provide a valid, policy-based rationale, ignored my attempts at discussion, and possibly engaged in sock puppetry. I'm sorry, but that is certainly not the "correct" way to go about this. The block will expire in six days. When that happens, he or she will be free to make useful contributions. If that's not soon enough, he/she can sign in for a free username account. Nightscream (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Um, no. The correct way to proceed is to remove the stuff that is not supported by the reference source as it is used in the article. Period. No contacting other websites. No need to discuss on the talk page. This is BLP information and is right in the policy. Your re-adding information that was NOT supported by the sources was in fact the far greater BLP violation, and quite frankly is blockworthy in and of itself. You are responsible for the edits you make to the project. You've added clearly unsourced negative BLP information. I suggest you reconsider your own perspective on this question. Risker (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Nightscream - what is the current purpose of the block? What disruption are you protecting Wikipedia from? The IP has jumped through all of the hoops you requested of them - can you not just unblock now? Per Blocking policy point #4 "Blocks should not be punitive...where there is no current conduct issue of concern." Please reconsider. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 01:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
No, blocks are not punitive, they're preventative, and a one-week block is appropriate for this matter. The editor in question has not "jumped through any hoops", nor would I ever presume to obligate any editor to do so. The editor only ceased removing sourced material from the article when their ability to do so was taken away from them, and has not contacted me (or anyone, to my knowledge) since. I presume they contacted MTV, which is why MTV removed that material from their bio page, but whether the editor did this after the block, and as a result of it, or embarked on this approach concurrently with their content deletion on this site, I don't know, so it's not like anyone can say that they've made any conciliatory gesture regarding their behavior. If they have, then why have they not filled out the block appeal form that's include with the block notice? Or for that matter, why not just sign in for a free username account? I didn't include preventing people from that IP from logging in when I blocked the IP, did I? Or use the other IP from which I believe they originally removed that material? In any event, why is it so important for you to unblock this person, especially when they've made efforts at communication? This isn't punitive; it's just allowing a one-week block to remain because nothing has happened to give cause to reconsider it. But if that editor really wants to edit again, and only from that particular IP, I'll remove the block if they simply ask me to, and offer an explanation of their intent. Would that be a fair compromise? Beyond that, I see no reason for your bending over backward for someone who hasn't asked for it. Nightscream (talk)
The IP has absolutely jumped through hoops - to the point where MTV has now retracted the information (I assume that the information must have still been posted at the MTV site for you to repeatedly restore it to the article). I find it upsetting that you speak of them not making a "conciliatory gesture regarding their behavior". Seriously? Two admins ask you to reconsider the block and your response is "I'll remove the block if they simply ask me to"?? Your entire response is just so completely not inline with the blocking policy, WP:BITE, and WP:BLP that it makes my head spin. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 02:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
What does MTV removing the info have to do with that editor "jumping through hoops"? Are we both using the same meaning for that phrase? One more time: That editor has not contacted me or anyone else on this site, or even used the block appeal on the IP talk page, so how have they "jumped through hoops"? Contacting MTV was simply a reasonable course of action, and does not constitute bending over backwards or going above and beyond that, which is what the phrase "jumping through hoops" connotes. As for the "two admins", that other admin attacked me with false accusations and threats, which is hardly something to lend any sort of credibility to an unblock. As for you, I really do appreciate your good faith intervention, but I still don't understand why that IP's unblock is so important to you. Can you please explain to me why not letting the one week block run its course is such an important issue for you? Nightscream (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I have unblocked the IP and apologised to the real live human who was using it. Nightscream, you should consider yourself lucky that I haven't imposed the rest of the block time on you. This is not some politician on a cover-up mission. You do not put that kind of information into any article about a living person, sourced to something as flimsy as MTV, you definitely do not edit war to put it back in the article, and you absolutely do not block the poor soul who is trying to remove it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(moved from Elen of the Roads talkpage to keep the discussion together) If the anonymous IP editor was indeed the cast member of that show in person, then they should've contacted me, or anyone on Wikipedia to address this matter in an open, transparent manner. By instead removing the material which was sourced to the very network on which that show aired, and making no attempt to respond my messages on the IP's talk page, that person left me with little choice; I acted in good faith, and my actions were completely legitimate. Many times when photographing public events for WP and the Commons, I have happily aided BLP subjects who have requested my help in addressing problems with their articles. This includes contacting Community Liaison Maggie Dennis, and Jimmy Wales himself, most recent regarding the Toure matter, for example. But if the person removes sourced material from an IP account and makes no efforts to respond to my messages, my hands are tied. In your view, I should just assume that when an IP editor removes sourced content, that oh, I should assume that it's the actual subject, which is silly. Equally silly is your position that MTV is "flimsy", when the article in question is about a show on MTV, and the source is the bio pages about cast members on their website. So spare me your unwarranted threats. Nightscream (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you learn to use your own tools (rather than acting like one, which is what you are doing at the moment). The first IP locates to Pittsburgh, the second to New York, suggesting that the editor might have some difficulty going back to the first IP when you blocked the second with account creation disabled. Since you obviously don't know, let me explain that when you check that box, it stops anyone creating an account from that IP. Secondly, you do realise that IP editors don't have the luxury of watchlists, or the new message icon. The editor hadn't realised she had a talkpage to respond to you on. Thirdly, I would always give the benefit of the doubt and leave that kind of information out of a BLP for any number of reasons - the sourcing wasn't good enough, it was WP:UNDUE and another editor (in fact, four other editors, including two Arbitrators in the end up) disagreed with keeping it in the article.Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
As a disinterested party, albeit one who views Nightscream as a responsible and meticulous editor, I think it's necessary to point out that I'm surprised to hear anyone say that the MTV website itself is not "good enough" sourcing for an article about an MTV program. Also, I'm not sure it's wise, as policy, to assume anyone is who they say they are; Wikipedia has gotten burned by hoaxes before, as have Twitter and Facebook, where someone claims to be a celebrity or even simply another person; Twitter had to begin its "verification" process to combat that. I can't speak for anything else in this exchange; I thought it important to make these two points about larger overall policy and assumptions, and I'm sure, judging from your own articulate concerns and experience, that you understand and appreciate why I note these two points. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I happened to be strolling by, and only want to point out one thing, which I can confirm as a regular IP editor. Yes, we do get notices when someone posts on our talk page, which I assume is identical to what editors with accounts get. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Justice League #3

I just wanted to say thank you. That was very sweet of you. Dave (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, since you are the comics industry professional that I have had the most recent direct contact with; the strangely blown up situation surrounding me; that I have thus far actually found you honourable, sensible, and trustworthy; and that I think that several of the people involved want thorough responses from me, but without any fuzz.
However, I don't know the best manner to do that, or even if it is possible, and have very low ability to lie/filter direct communication, so it would probably be best if I gave full responses in private. So, do you have an email address that I can correspond with you through? You can contact me through vizierz2002@yahoo.com Dave (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Could use some extra eyes on something...

If you get a chance could you take a look at Chemo, ites edit history, and this editors contribution history.

I'm going to tap a few other old hands at Comics since there is something odd here and I want to make sure it isn't just me. I'm also approaching a few Arbs since this may impact an old ArbCom case.

- J Greb (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying for Chemo, but shouldn't his other media appearances remain fully detailed with what part Chemo did in those appearances? Rtkat3 (talk) 7:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In Jonni Future, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Barbarella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 11:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Stun gun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 10:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My edits

Thanks for all the info on edits. I am still getting the hang of citing sources, so I appreciate your bearing with me as I learn the ropes. Thanks again! 24.61.153.165 (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Greg Pak edit summary

That edit summary wasn't very nice or helpful. What's going on? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It didn't seem to the editor in question to be helpful, and it seemed a little bitey to me (calling his added photos "ugly" attacks the contributor directly, imo). The contributor wasn't trying to dick with us or the article, and Good Faith could have been used a bit more.
I have no horse in this race; it just seemed odd that you went off on the user, who was simply adding a more current picture. Last time I checked, the subject doesn't need to be smiling.
Anyhoo, there is an RfC on the discussion page for the article in question. You could weigh in there. So far, consensus appears to be leaning towards inclusion of the beardless photo. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I wanted to thank you publicly, Jack, for expressing concerns on my behalf. It's really appreciated. I did indeed perceive some hosility from this user, as you had rightly inferred when I referred to their edit summary as 'nasty' here [10]. PermanentVacay (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
To Nightscream - you are definitely sending me mixed messages. Here [11] you stated that a user _can_ be bold if they believe they have a better picture. In the discussions under Greg Pak, and in your edit summary to me, you imply somewhat that I should not be doing this. Regarding that original Larry Hama picture, users were somewhere evenly divided on the picture (leaning slightly in your favor), which implies to me that my picture was not as bad as you thought it was. In the case of Greg Pak, you were the only user who thought the original picture was inferior, so I have to point out that it was in this case _you_ who was changing a 'superior' picture on the site to an 'inferior' one, according to consensus. The fact that you never communicated directly to me on this matter also increases the feeling that you are trying to alienate me for some reason. If you are not, your behavior certainly makes me feel that way - and I think that you should consider how others will react and feel when you do things like this in the future. PermanentVacay (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Tami Akbar/Anderson/Roman

Okay, I'm confused. I thought I was making a simple connection between Real World: Los Angeles and Basketball Wives, since Tami is the common link between the two, and her participation in Real World LA is noted in the Basketball Wives article without sourcing/references, and I thought it appropriate to cross-reference the mention in the first article, since it's specifically pointed up in the second. Two shows, sister networks, MTV Networks umbrella, what have you. It would follow somehow that if mentioning her participation in the second show in the article about the first one is inappropriate without supporting references, that mentioning the first show in the article about the second show would be equally inappropriate, but I may be misunderstanding things in their entirety. Absurdist1968 (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that; I suspected as much. I am still a little bit unclear on how to correctly use episodic television (as well as, for example, DVDs of TV/movies) as primary sourcing, but I think I can muddle through until I stumble onto the appropriate WP articles in my regular browsing. :) Absurdist1968 (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Real World (Romance section)

Hello. Though we'll likely see more on the upcoming The Real World: San Diego (2011) reunion special, I do think the Zach/Ashley relationship is notable enough for the Romance section (on the main Real World article), more than the Dustin/Heather relationship from previous season (2011 Las Vegas). I was on edge as to whether or not to add Dustin/Heather to that section (Romance), but I backed off mainly due to the shocking revelations of Dustin's past (The Fratpad), as well as the fact that he later flirted with Cooke. Unlike Zach & Ashley, I felt that Dustin & Heather were too "on-and-off" to include for the Romance section (following the aforementioned "Fratpad episode"). Thank you. DPH1110 (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)DPH1110

Hello again. I'm also contemplating adding Ryan Conklin & Baya Voce to the Romance section on the main Real World article. Ryan & Baya did start a romantic relationship toward the end of their season, after Ryan severed a relationship with his original girlfriend (Belle), and their relationship continued even when he was called back to active duty (after their season ended), which was documented on that MTV Special regarding Ryan Conklin. Thank you. DPH1110 (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)DPH1110

rw pgh

you are a terrible editor and a moran for actually creating a page for a long-rumored fake show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.59.138 (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Gotta love the irony of someone who misspells "moron"! --Tenebrae (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Star Trek: Titan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link to Borg
Steven Hirsch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link to TMZ

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No mention on the talk page?

So you haven't mentioned on the Talk:Kristanna Loken page why the sources aren't accepted? The high amount of edit war will be ongoing if you don't. --ConCelFan (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not threatening. I just compared the page's history (which no one is reading as obvious from its length) and talk page (which people read and see no mention). So this is just a WP:AGF advice. --ConCelFan (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, the page's history of 2011 is filled with reversions relating to DOB. I don't know if reversions before that are too. So what can be seen is definitely an edit war. --ConCelFan (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Likely with revision 436178762 of 25 June 2011, and onwards. DOB was first switched to December then back to October then back to December then back to October, then removed, then keeps reappearing as October and December. --ConCelFan (talk) 08:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Kirkman

Hi, Night. Always good to collaborate and discuss with another veteran. I think simply saying "work sold at vendors like Amazon" sort of makes the point. The original publications, obviously, represent basic, encyclopedic information the article cannot do without. Without them, the article would be less than encyclopedic. Not having every collected reprint of those original publications, on the other hand, does not make the article less encyclopedic — but does make the bibliography more a catalog than a bibliography, and seems designed to point people to where they can buy the collections.

Secondarily, there are issues of WP:DISCRIMINATE; unwieldiness (can you imagine listing every reprint collection of Jack Kirby's work?); and finally bibliographic convention — to give just two examples, virtually no bibliography of Daniel Keyes or Richard Matheson lists every paperback collection of every short story they've ever published. So I think there are multifaceted reasons not to include all these reprints — the information for which still exists in the comics-series articles themselves, which while arguably promotional seems more directly related to the series themselves: A Twilight Zone article might list the DVD collections, but that wouldn't necessarily follow logically for a Rod Serling or a Richard Matheson article, for instance. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Night. D'oh. You're right; it's an essay. I meant to link to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (You can see how easy it is to confuse the two shortcuts!).
What's your take on my comment about bibliographic convention? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, N. Working on a response, but I have to do a quick work thing for a couple minutes. Back shortly. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm back. You reasonably mention you're in favor of including reprint collections, in addition to the original works, "for reasons I mentioned above." In response, and certainly with great respect for the major and important work you do here, I've been taking the time to look at them one by one and give full and specific attention to each.
  • "It seems to be a very reasonable bit of information." That's not really an argument, per se, but a tautology. The very thing we discussing is whether it's reasonable to include this information, and this sentence is essentially saying that "the reason that it's reasonable to include it is because it's reasonable to include."
  • "It also may be an indicator of notability, vis a vis the creators' success, since works are generally only collected when the original work is successful." Isn't Kirkman notable even without listing the reprint editions? Does not having them listed mean Kirkman is no longer notable enough to have an article?
  • "It may also help WP:V, since collections may be the primary work sold at vendors like Amazon, where the individual works collected are usually indicated." At Amazon and other online booksellers, well, yes, that's the primary way they're sold. But we're not here to help Amazon and other booksellers sell these collections, which is my primary point. Are the original comics' existence not verifiable through the Grand Comics Database, or through reviews, or through industry articles and press releases?
What do you think, N? Are my comments reasonable and fair responses to the points and concerns you specified? And what are your thoughts on my point about bibliographic convention?--Tenebrae (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow the argument about not including additional material once notability has been determined. It's the original comics that make him notable and we add to what makes him notable. The reprints aren't what makes him notable. I just don't think our purview is to be a catalog of every repackaged versions of the original works. Because it's the original works themselves that are critical and important.
And with all due respect, Night, I've answered your points and questions but you haven't answered the one I had about bibliographic convention.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on that, but that aside, do you think we're at loggerheads? Would it help to get other editors' views? This seems like a potentially far-reaching issue, so maybe we're not the only two in the Project who have an opinion on this. What do you say? You want to work together to craft an RfC (since it might be easier to do that if we split the work)? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Okey-doke. Sometime tomorrow let's do this . . . I've actually just finished a 12-hour workday, believe it or not.
My fault for not being clearer — I wasn't referring to Wikipedia articles when I mentioned authors and bibliographies. I meant bibliographies in general. Honestly, I would estimate that 99% of the Daniel Keyes biographies online and in print don't list every single book in which "Flowers for Algernon" appeared.
On the flip side, I think you might have misconstrued my point about adding new original material after notability is established. When an actor's new movie comes out, we add it to his filmography. But I wouldn't add every VHS, Beta, DVD, Blu-Ray etc. version of every one of his films to his filmography. By that same token, I wouldn't add reprints to a comics creator's bibliography.
So tomorrow then, my comics compadre! With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Happened to notice this exchange, and wanted to chime in. I think I agree with both of you - but we're talking about two different ideas. One is a list of all of the works by an author, the other is the list of all publications of works by an author. I think both are useful things, but they need to be distinguished, and articles and terminology should somehow be explicit as to which one(s) it contains... PermanentVacay (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
This is good — shows there's interest in this topic. Nightscream and I are arranging an RfC, so we'll notify you when it's up.
Night: How is this for a first draft of the RfC language? "Discussion as to whether the bibliography in a comics creators' article should list only the original comics or also list every reprint collection containing those comics." --Tenebrae (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask a question here? Why does it have to be "or"? Both of these kinds of lists are very useful, just for different purposes. I think both should be allowed, and they should be clearly distinguished from each other. For instance List of short stories by Harry Harrison presents both pieces of information together. PermanentVacay (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Although it's true, you should just throw up the RfC and we should discuss it there! PermanentVacay (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, Tenebrae. Nightscream (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If someone could let me know when this happens, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! PermanentVacay (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Real World Reunion specials

Hello. I just added material to the reunion sections of both the Cancun and 2011 Las Vegas seasons. You're probably better at copyediting Real World material than I am, though I gave it my best shot (on both articles). Thank you. DPH1110 (talk) 06:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)DPH1110

Unreferenced/uncited edits: Please assist or advise

Many recent edits have been made by Searcher 1990 (talk | contribs), all without any references or citations. I have reverted many of the edits between the dates of 17 December 2011 – 20 December 2011, but there are quite a few more edits made previous my revision corrections, for which I imagine are also unreferenced &/or uncited. Upon further review of the edit history of Searcher 1990, it appears they continue to conduct a patter of behavior that is be disruptive & not in accordance with Wikipedia's manual of style (even after a history of punishment). Please assist with preventing such edits from continuing. Bullmoosebell (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. Bullmoosebell (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
and please sign your block notices! If you use the Twinkle notifier, it already does it ... if you do them manually, it's usually just a matter of adding |sig=yes inside the template (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I researched recent contributions by Searcher 1990 (talk | contribs) to find this editor is continuing their practice of making edits without references or citations. Bullmoosebell (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention by Donner60 that Searcher 1990 is continuing to edit in the same fashion as previous to their blocking, only they are not logging in and editing through IP address 84.193.82.180 (talk | contribs). Bullmoosebell (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen, said user is making edits, similar in style and on the same pages, as they've previously made. Bullmoosebell (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Tis the season

MarnetteD | Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

Many thanks for all your work here at WikiP. I hope that you have a stupendous 2012. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For your understanding, fairness, and enforcement with good faith & disruptive edits and conflict resolution. Bullmoosebell (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding an Edit War

Before I begin making edits against another user (Donner60 (talk | contribs)), I'm wondering the best approach to discuss their edits. In my opinion, they have been vague or ambiguous (Sylvester G. Hill) or highly debatable (Ellen Spencer Mussey). I'm sorry to seem trivial, but I fear many of their edits should be discussed prior to confirmation because they seem to be fundamental information (the latter link reflects a change of rank from General to Colonel. His reference is a book, my suggested reference is the American University College of Law). However, the sheer volume of edits preclude me from being able to discuss all of this user's edits on each talk page. Bullmoosebell (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I happened upon this by pure chance. The edits that I have placed on the pages noted by Bullmoose are from a highly reliable source Eicher, John H., and David J. Eicher, Civil War High Commands. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. ISBN 0-8047-3641-3, which is a reference book used by several editors of Civil War articles. I am reasonably sure one or two experienced editors will back me up on this. I did not write those articles and did not contribute most of what is in them. Almost every sentence that I placed in the articles, and in some cases even phrases, are footnoted with the page from Eicher or occasionally another source. I am 100% convinced the edits are accurate as well as being reliably sourced. Is Bullmoose in effect implying that every citation must be found in an internet source. I have well over 2,000 edits for a period of 17 months. I have created 36 new pages. I am an autopatrolled user, not because I requested it, but because another editor requested it and an administrator granted it. I'd like to know in what sense these edits based on a highly reliable source are either vague, ambiguous or highly debatable. I don't claim that every sentence I write may be crystal clear and some may require a little editing. That is a far cry from stating they are wrong. Here is the google book URL for Civil War High Commands: http://books.google.com/books?id=Fs0Ajlnjl6AC. As a new book, the pages on Hill or Mussey may or may not be available on line. Donner60 (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I might add that the web page for the American University College of Law cited by Bullmoose reads in part: "Because Mussey had not become a member of the Washington bar during the 16 years that she had worked in her husband's law practice, upon his death she was required to become a member in order to maintain the law practice." That does not differ from the edit I made about Reuben's death and Ellen's continuation of the practice. Donner60 (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Here is the description of Civil War High Commands from the google book page. I would put this reference up against a web page biography for the very reasons stated in this description: Based on nearly five decades of research, this magisterial work is a biographical register and analysis of the people who most directly influenced the course of the Civil War, its high commanders. Numbering 3,396, they include the presidents and their cabinet members, state governors, general officers of the Union and Confederate armies (regular, provisional, volunteers, and militia), and admirals and commodores of the two navies. Civil War High Commands will become a cornerstone reference work on these personalities and the meaning of their commands, and on the Civil War itself.
Errors of fact and interpretation concerning the high commanders are legion in the Civil War literature, in reference works as well as in narrative accounts. The present work brings together for the first time in one volume the most reliable facts available, drawn from more than 1,000 sources and including the most recent research. The biographical entries include complete names, birthplaces, important relatives, education, vocations, publications, military grades, wartime assignments, wounds, captures, exchanges, paroles, honors, and place of death and interment.
In addition to its main component, the biographies, the volume also includes a number of essays, tables, and synopses designed to clarify previously obscure matters such as the definition of grades and ranks; the difference between commissions in regular, provisional, volunteer, and militia services; the chronology of military laws and executive decisions before, during, and after the war; and the geographical breakdown of command structures. The book is illustrated with 84 new diagrams of all the insignias used throughout the war and with 129 portraits of the most important high commanders. Donner60 (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Bullmoosebell and I have had some correspondence and I don't think we are far apart. He rightly pointed out that my mention of Wikipedia lists of generals was vague because it was not specific enough and there are many such lists. The underlying sources are the better references. (I cited the lists only in the edit summary, not in the article, which would have been contrary to guidelines against citing Wikipedia's own articles.) I also acknowledge that a good edit history does not mean that every edit is a good one or that a citation may be incorrect or vague or missing. I think I wrongly supposed that a more general challenge to my edit history was being made. (I think Bullmoosebell may have intended to refer to edits to John F. Weston rather than Sylvester Hill but I will review them both as soon as I can get back to them after a night's sleep.) Donner60 (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

We discussed the edits in question. We're on the wavelength and intend to make Wikipedia a better reference material/materiel, and we're handling this debacle offline. Sorry for playing on your take page, however fun it's been. Bullmoosebell (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No prob. Glad to uh, be of assistance (I think). :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Updates to North Bergen, New Jersey

I made a whole series of updates to the article for North Bergen, New Jersey, mostly in the context of adding data from the 2010 Census on population and area. While I was in the article, I also added and updated sources and tweaked some of the wording. I don't doubt that you will review the changes on your own, but I wanted to give you a heads up, especially as there were a lot of changes made to the article and I know how closely you monitor this article and other Hudson County articles. If I made any mistakes in wording or formatting, please excuse my errors in advance and feel free to contact me to discuss any of the changes I had made to the article. Thanks again for all of your painstaking work updating and expanding the articles in the Hudson County area. Alansohn (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I took a whack at Secaucus, New Jersey, as well as some other Hudson County municipalities as they crop up. The area and census data changes are pretty comprehensive, so I try to include a decent review of other material in the articles as I go through them, adding or updating sources as appropriate. Again, give me a shout if there are any questions about my edits. Alansohn (talk) 04:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Pic change for olivia munn

hi, when you changed the pic here [12] you forgot to change the caption. i made the change, but please be more careful in the future. don't want inaccurate pages. thanks. Bouket (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Protection templates

Just letting you know that you no longer have to add protection templates when you protect a page - a bot automatically does this. →Στc. 23:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Hi. When you recently edited Adam Hughes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phil Hester (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Frank Quitely

No offence, but I was in middle of adding the reference for the edit to the Frank Quitely page. Just figuring out how to do it was all. No need to be so hasty!

Kind of puts people off getting involved in this when people are so quick to delete stuff.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=36114

http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/sputnik/53/scifi/grant.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.76.56 (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced Joe Shuster Award categories

Hi, I do appreciate you taking the effort to inform people on the importance of providing sources. However, rather than so speedily deleting the categories, don't you think it would have been better (and more helpful to readers) to just source the material? In some of the articles (e.g. Darwyn Cooke), the Awards were actually mentioned in the body of the article, unsourced, but you left those untouched. Also, Ryan Sohmer, Dale Eaglesham, Pia Guerra and Jellaby's Awards were already sourced, and Maryse Dubuc's Award was sourced twice already. It just makes extra work for both you and myself to revert the changes back and forth, when you could have just informed me to add the citations (pretty easy for me to do, for such a high-profile award).

Anyways, I'm in the process of adding in the citations now (which will be sporadic—I pop open the laptop whenever the baby manages to fall asleep for a couple of minutes). CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 02:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I may be finished adding the necessary cites, but I may have missed one or two. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 13:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, I didn't just say that you should have added the citations. I said you could have, or you you have informed me so that I could have done it myself, rather than just removing what I added. If you look at my own history, you'll see that I have myself gone through a lot of effort to track down and source articles, as well. I certainly wasn't trying to imply that you haven't, and I definitely wasn't trying to be offensive—apologies if it came off that way. I was only trying to say that it's frustrating to see material removed when it's obvious that, even if it's not sourced yet, it could be easily sourced: in the case of an award, rather than just some random claim (e.g. if someone had just claimed Jeff Smith had recently come out of the closet). If it seems unlikely to be untrue, then is it really a priority to have it removed so quickly?
Please don't take this as an invitation to an argument. I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm only trying to find a way for things to be easier on us all. Happy Holidays. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 22:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess it comes down to which you believe is worse: hastily adding information without citations, or hastily removing material that may have been cited already. Myself, I tend to leave uncited material in unless it seems dubious or potentially libelous. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 22:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, I spend a lot of time adding citations to articles. I do understand its importance, and I cite a lot of things even when I think they are unlikely to be challenged. In fact, I think that "Christmas falls on December 25th" should be cited, if for no other reason than that, if it's so obvious, it should be easy to find a reference. What I was saying was not that the awards should be left uncited, but that awards should be easy to track down a citation for (the Eisners, Ignatz, Harveys, Doug Wrights, Joe Shusters, etc, get pretty widely reported, as well as maintaining the information on their websites). When it's something for which it's pretty easy to track down and verify a source, I don't see the benefit in removing the information entirely, even if it's not cited at the moment. One benefit from adding the categories is that it lets people track down related pages so they can fix them up in groups. I've been doing this recently with a lot of Canadian comics-related articles. By following the links from the categories, I can go through articles in a sort-of orderly way and fix things up. Without the categories, it would take a lot more effort on my part just to hunt down the right articles to fix up in the first place (assuming I even knew about them at all)—time better spent editing. Editing and tracking down sources is time-consuming as it is, as you've pointed out yourself. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 04:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

National Archives ExtravaSCANza

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!

This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nightscream/Archive_7&oldid=1220729111"