User talk:Nightscream/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Nightscream. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Archive 1 (2005): March 5, 2005 - December 29, 2005
Archive 2 (2006): January 2, 2006 - January 18, 2007
Archive 3 (2007): January 18, 2007 - December 26, 2007
Archive 4 (2008): January 2, 2008 - December 31, 2008
Archive 5 (2009): January 2, 2009 - January 2, 2010
Archive 6 (2010): January 1, 2010 - December 29, 2010
Archive 7 (2011): January 2, 2011 - December 30, 2011
Archive 8 (2012): January 1, 2012 - December 31, 2012
Archive 9 (2013): January 2, 2013 - December 3, 2013
Archive 10 (2014): January 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014
Archive 11 (2015): January 1, 2015 - December 31, 2015
Archive 12 (2016): January 12, 2016 - December 24, 2016
Archive 13 (2017): January 1, 2017 - December 30, 2017
Archive 14 (2018): January 11, 2018 - December 31, 2018
Archive 15 (2019): January 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019
Archive 16 (2020): March 25, 2020 - December 27, 2020
Archive 17 (2021): January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021
Archive 18 (2022): January 12, 2022 - December 31, 2022
Archive 19 (2023): January 1, 2023 - December 31, 2023
Archive 19 (2023): January 1, 2023 - December 31, 2023

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

When you created Wikimedia Commons categories such as Category:Blade and his cast, Category:Hulk and his cast, Category:Iron Man and his cast, and so on, what did the phrase "and his cast" mean? — O'Dea (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I wish that I'd taken that picture, but it came from a photographer I've been in contact with for several years now. He's provided hundreds of photos to Wikipedia, and they seem to improve in quality each year. I have a DLSR and highly recommend it. I'm just never in situations where I'd get to photograph celebrities... --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That looks like it would be a lot of fun, great job on adding that many photos! I did go to Comic-Con this year, but only for a couple of hours and didn't make it to any of the panels. I believe GageSkidmore has a press pass for the event and he gets some really great photos from the panels. I usually only photograph other events I go to, but haven't really uploaded that much of my own photos recently. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping to get this article up to GA or better quality, and any help or suggestions you could give would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha, no. Just a happy coincidence. If I'd been following all those, I'd've asked sooner! Argento Surfer (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the suggestions! Argento Surfer (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, what's the problem here? Brown's book is listed on Amazon, with a release date of May 2013. Why are you challenging something so basic? Sources of course need to be provided for information that is challenged, but this seems an odd thing to issue an "Original Research" warning for. --El on ka 06:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your instructions on sourcing and citations, I found them to be most helpful, and will do my best to follow them in the future.

The quotation that you removed from the Fight of the Century page was not taken from an Ali-Frazier I Film, but rather a documentary entitled Thriller in Manila which documented the entirety of the Ali-Frazier saga. The quotation cited was read by the narrator, Liev Schreiber, and takes place in the first 45 seconds of the clip that can be found at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IbTi9ZUPbE Thank you again for your help. LawrenceJayM 06:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)06:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)06:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by LawrenceJayM (talk • contribs)

I see that you recently worked on Ira Flatow. I was listening to Science Friday, which took me to his article. I decided to source all of the information in it. I removed some early life stuff because it was in none of the sources in the article and I could find nothing on the Internet to verify it. I rewrote a number of the sentences because they were copy and pasted from sources. I think now, at least, all of the information in it is verified by reliable sources.--I am One of Many (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#BASC:_Asgardian_appeal. As you were involved in edit wars with Asgardian you may be interested in commenting. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well done. It's a shame anybody has to remember where to find all those examples of A's past behavior in order to link them. Your comments on his talk page were smart and showed either a great memory or a great ability to hunt that junk down. Best wishes. Doczilla _STOMP! 07:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

After being away for about a week, I've responded to your followup on the footnote location issue on my talk page. I'm not going to revert you on the article right now...but it seems to me that the guideline you yourself cited seems to support my version. Let me know what you think. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rick Rescorla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbine Massacre (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) 11:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up. Man, I had a typo in every one of those three cites! Hoping you're well and shutterbugging away! --Tenebrae (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Holy fuck. I am so, so sorry to hear that. But data-recovery guys, they're good. Even after stuff gets deleted, a lot of it stays on the hard drive somehow. I hope they retrieve it. And y'know, external hard drives for backup are really cheap these days — I got a 2 terrabtye drive for about $200 like four or five years ago, and you can probably get four times that memory for the same price now. (I'm not wild about storing my stuff on the cloud, though I do for some stuff.) Fingers crossed for you, buddy. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank goodness for family! --Tenebrae (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Nightscream, have you noticed that the episode list for Ultimate Spider-Man is on view source mode due to an edit war. This prevents me from correcting the link to Rhino. I have enjoyed the Season Two premiere episodes which featured Lizard and Electro (who was revealed in the credits to be voiced by Christopher Daniel Barnes). The episode debuting that show's version of Rhino is going to be tomorrow. If you have seen the two episodes this past Monday, what do you think of them? Rtkat3 (talk) 4:00, January 26 2013 (UTC)

The C in "comics" has been capitalized when it should be lower-cased. I think the episode page should be under it's semi-protected page so that the contributers can add more details to the episodes. Especially when it comes to detailing the upcoming episode featuring Rhino. Rtkat3 (talk) 4:30, January 26 2013 (UTC)

Semi-Protected so that registered users can go on that page while the anonymous can't. Does that help with your question? Rtkat3 (talk) 4:55, January 26 2013 (UTC)

You're right about the edit war that LoveWaffle was involved in with an anonymous user. The administrator DeltaQuad was the one who put the page on View Source mode in the first place. Rtkat3 (talk) 5:33, January 26 2013 (UTC)

I have just seen your recent work there. Rtkat3 (talk) 7:33, January 26 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Night. You or another admin might want to stop by Star Trek into Darkness. Though every mainstream periodical from Time to The New York Times, plus the filmmakers themselves, spells it in non-standard form with a capital I ("Star Trek Into Darkness"), editors on the talk page reached a compromise that opens the article with "Star Trek into Darkness" (styled as "Star Trek Into Darkness)."

Virtually every editor on the talk page was willing to go with that compromise solution in order to reach stability and peace. Exactly one editor disagrees, and against consensus doesn't want to allow the compromise. I wouldn't ask for help during the debate over lowercase/uppercase "into," but now that a consensus compromise has been reached and one editor is trying to wreck it, I thought it'd be good to get an admin's opinion. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. I know — it's lunacy. Probably if you go to the section titled "Actually..." and go down from there you'll get the gist. Believe me, I'm embarrassed to ask, but given all the sturm und drang I think a lot of people there just want to have some peace and move on. Oy! --Tenebrae (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

As indeed I'd already done; despite the length of the thread, it was mostly only about a half-dozen people involved. I dunno — I've always gotten the impression Wikipedia encourages compromise and discourages absolutistism on contentious issues. One editor trying to veto a compromise that even five editors want doesn't seem right to me. Still and all, it's important that a sensible admin outside the discussion be aware, especially given the high-profile subject. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at the most frequent and involved recent commenters — the discussion had gone on since at least Dec. 11 — so I probably should have been clearer that I was talking about the editors currently involved. As you note, quite rightly, eight or nine people supporting a compromise and one against would seem a consensus.

You admirably examined the page with more detail than I did, and we ultimately reached the same, I believe sensible, conclusion. Ay yi yi — or should I say, "I I I" ~! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Dude! Have you seen what's going on at (what is now, at least) Star Trek Into Darkness? Apparently a couple of websites latched on to the debate and made satirical hay out of it. It is pretty freaking hilarious! And just think — we were there in the beginning! : ) --Tenebrae (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Just read the Australian article (which was very well and veyr knowledgeably written; seems Andrew Ramadge is quite a respected tech and music journalist), and ... wow, just ... wow! What a great read.

Green or not, you did good then. You did exactly what someone needed to do. And I think you did the right thing again at the Trek article, leaving the compromise version up that, ultimately, gave people a choice on the article page itself. I don't envy all the extra work an admin takes on, having to make Solomonic decisions in often moronic arguments (and smart arguments, too — I just couldn't resist the rhyming parallel!). My hat is off to you, bro'. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You're admirably humble, and while I'm sure a lot of it is the type of housekeeping you note, that's still a lot of work. I've said consistently through the years that you guys deserve a lot of credit for taking on the extra burden. (I wish I were more selfless in that regard, though I do put in much time helping, I think, to better this altruistic free encyclopedia,) --Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

hey m8 can you plz tell that stupid lovewaffle guy to stop removing my info as vandalism and unsourced stuff when they clearly are sourced and not vandalism's if you can plz do it coz it will be a big help. i've been putting info to that page since s01 and never had to deal with a jerk like this guy :( 175.157.1.119 (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that you thought that you were doing the right thing when you refactored my titled thread but, as an admin, you are aware of the inherently problematic issues surrounding refactoring the posts of others. You claimed that you did so to make it less uncivil. However, your altered title did not reflect the frustration inherent in the post that I felt with an overly stupid stalemate as to grammar and spelling use. I have been here in Wikipedia a while and know what I am doing. My post was designed to accomplish three very specific tasks. First among them was to embarrass and shame the crap out of a small group of editors engaged in a protracted and utterly WP:LAME edit-war over whether a single word in the title should be capitalized or not. The second purpose of the admittedly provocative title and post was to dislodge the loggerhead of polarized views and bring about a solution. Thirdly was to discover where the sources of polarity where originating. I think there is little doubt as to who those agents of polarity are now. I actually knew who one of them was before I even posted, as I had dealt with their behavior before. Shining a light on their behavior was just a bonus.
I do not appreciate any refactoring of my posts; at least, not without contacting me first, so I can address the matter or at least explain via email my intent. I know you had the best intentions in refactoring my subject title, but I would ask you to make more of an effort to talk to me before you do so, in the future. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

And I would appreciate you not characterize my action as admitting to incivility; it was no such thing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I apologize for taking up space on your talk page with the Shiney bit. I don't have that many buttons to push (at least, not that many that are easily accessible), but Shiney managed to push some of them. I should have simply withdrawn or boarded it after the first request to stop. Again, sorry. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I too apologise for the back and forth on your page. MisterShiney ✉ 19:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You were nice enough to let me know in a straightforward, constructive way ... and hey, you are a buddy!

I'm amazed the IPs appear to originate in different states since the first two numbers and the edit were identical; makes me wonder if it's some computer whiz (this is the King of the Nerds article, after all) who used proxies or packets or whatever they call those things to prevent IP addresses from being easily traced.

I'll try the level-1 image next time there's a similar situation. Thanks, NS! With regards,-- Tenebrae (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be problems with The Courtier's Reply, see also Talk:The Courtier's Reply In sorting these problems I think I need help from Wikipedians who are more familiar with the very complex rules and guidelines here than I am. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I note you spent nearly 2 hours sorting out The Courtier's Reply, thanks. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that the Courtier's reply is itself a controversial subject, I do not believe I acted wrongly in giving an objection to it. JHobson2 (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Now I understand. If someone else had come up with that objection, it would be OK to post it. Since I came up with it, it is not. JHobson2 (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said, you say it was wrong for me to voice an objection to the Courtier's Reply. Had I quoted someone else, you would apparently have no objection. Or is it because I came up with a legitimate objection the PZ Myer's opinion, and you wanted no contrary opinion voiced? You seem to be very hot and bothered because of my contribution. What actually is wrong with it? JHobson2 (talk)

In other words, because the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the Courtier's Reply do not contain the objection I raised, it is to be thrown out. What I would really like to know is EXACTLY WHAT ARE PROBLEMS WITH THE OBJECTION I RAISED? Be specific. You natter about "original research" and "opinions" -- although the Courtier's Reply is itself an opinion, based on a belief that theology is completely worthless -- but you have said nothing whatsoever on the CONTENT of what I wrote. JHobson2 (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we are at an impasse here. I raised an objection to the Courtier's Reply, you shriek "Original Research!" and immediately revert my objection. You flatly refuse to consider the objection on its merits. No, ideological purity must supercede any comment. My statement was not found in the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the Courtier's Reply, so it must be cast into outer darkness, without thought about whether it is a reasonable objection or not. Fine, I bow to your desire that Wikipedia be unsullied by inexpert opinion. JHobson2 (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have just read Terry Eagleton's review of Dawkins' The God Delusion in the London Review of Books at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching He raises the same objection that I raised: Dawkins' ignorance of theology is inexcusable, and Dawkins would not accept similar ignorance in any other field. Thus, EAGLETON agrees with my objection to the Courtier's Reply. Is that expert enough for you? JHobson2 (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Eagleton doesn't say anything about the Courtier's reply. He criticizes The God Delusion for being informed by what he says is Dawkins' ignorance of theology. He never mentions or even alludes to the Courtier's Reply. Please stop trying to pass off your own personal viewpoint of The Courtier's Reply as being that of Eagleton's. It isn't. Nightscream (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I just noticed this was taken off the article on Mr. Frid. Any reason on why? I put a lot of heart into what I do on here. http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news/remembering-jonathan-frid/ Hired Ghoul (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the advice on the edit I had made, I've re-made it, and have used a source, I used the template to make it, and I'm not entirely sure what some of the fields mean, such as the "first name" field; could you please explain them if you have time? Thanks, Meeeeeeee39 (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

As a veteran WikiProject Comics editor, you're invited to a discussion at Talk:Marvel ReEvolution#Merger proposal. --Tenebrae (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that short films are quoted rather than italicized, but this is not the case. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), "film titles, like the titles of books and other works of art, are always italicized." Please do not change these again. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Itzkoff, Dave, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Michaelm55 (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that I am still amking mistakes. All the info I listed is confirmed in the attaced source.. I dont understand. I guess if you are a novice a wikipidia, then you have nothing of importance to add? Just a little help here? Weinhack (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)]]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jae Lee, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Paul Jenkins and One-shot (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) 11:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that part of the BLP policy applies to Colan, since he is deceased? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain this aversion to crediting the AUTHORS of sources? Or why the access date is indicated but not the publication date, which is far more important

I don't have an aversion at all, just making mistakes that a new contributor / editor / WikiGnome novice should be
RobinInTexas (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate your concern for vandalism, you have mistaken my edit for vandalism. But Urban Fantasy is a genre, and I believe that it's a genre the Saga comics fit in very well and would be a better way to describe them in the article besides the generic term of just Fantasy. 98.236.11.198 (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw your edit summary on Ray Comfort, and I'm wondering why you think that accessdate is only needed when there's no publication date? Date of access is required in both MLA and APA citation format; why wouldn't you think we should use it here? I do agree that we should add publication date when available, but I think that accessdate should always be used for internet sources. The point is that you're declaring to the reader (here or in an academic paper), "I'm citing what I read on the page as of such and such a date, but due to the ability for stuff on the internet to change, it's possible the page was different either before or after I accessed it." Qwyrxian (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

First, I want to thank you for your expertise in the Wikipedia style, and your will to contribute so much of your time into improving Wikipedia articles. You can probably tell that I'm an inexperienced Wikipedia editor, so excuse my naivety. Second, I was wondering about an edit summary note you posted, "spaces go before cite, not after." I'm not quite sure what you meant by that so if you could show me, that would be great. Thanks. Kyudan2 (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

An edit I made to this page was reversed due to "not providing sources". And that "personal knowledge" is not an accepted source. My question then becomes, I can't edit my own page with my own knowledge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.178.219 (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the image first provided by Scott Allie was not an improvement, even if he preferred it. I requested that he provide a better image, which he has done. I hope you agree. See more at Talk:Scott_Allie#Image_choice.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This is my last warning about your deletes without discussion. If you have a problem with material I have added, talk first. If you do not stop, I will report you for edit warring. Crtew (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with material I have added, talk first. Wrong. If you want to add material in an article that isn't about that article subject, which violates both policy and basic, common sense guidelines about good article writing, then it is you who has to justify doing so to the rest of the editing community, and only after the discussion to that effect has concluded. Given your apparent ignorance of various policies and guidelines, you have zero authority or credibility to be issuing warnings to anyone, any more than you have to be giving orders to other editors, as you did repeatedly on the Biggart talk page. But if you really think that another admin will look upon your behavior kindly, then be my guest and "report" me all you want. Nightscream 16:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream,

Go ahead and clean it up and I'll be fine with your edits. It's good that we both care about the article and about raising its quality! That's what's most important. More people should know about Biggart and what he accomplished. Good luck, Crtew (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello there, there must have been a mistake in here, but I don't remember ever talking to you, or ever editing Bill Biggart or its talk page (or else you removed my edits from the log), and yes, if I have warned you, in fact you probably engaged into a edit war and I'm well aware of its policy, when two, three or more editors engage into edit war it is customary to notify the relevant parts and proceed to 3RR noticeboard. And wikipedia is based on consensus, if someone edits something, a resolution must be followed, so if there is ever a problem with anything I do, please tell me or talk to me. I'm going to appreciate your feedback. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream, are you sure your comment on my talk page was directly forwarded to me, I'm still confused of what wrong I have done. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 17:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, lol, you really scared me, I could put that on village stocks tho, anyway, that made me lol. Regards Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 17:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I weighed in, but these things keep growing more awkward for me. I organized a Comic-Con panel with Scott. I'd have stayed out of it rather than dropping names (because that could get old), but the photo I'd have picked for a stranger just doesn't look as much like him. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 09:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Just curious, doesn't your user quote contradict your vehement protection of pages for "internet famous" people you happen to like? 24.114.252.242 (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream, If you can agree to get rid of any reference of the word ONLY in Bill Biggart or any appearance that he was the single media-related death, then I think I'm willing to come to a consensus. I just can't stand to think of the word ONLY there or the appearance of it while 7 other people are forgotten. That's my only motive here. But if you can see to it to agree to change the language as other people (cool, less passionate minds) are telling us, then I'm willing to let go of this (I'm persistent as hell ;-) as you are)! I'm also willing to let bygones be bygones. In fact, I'll buy you a beer at a Wikipedia-sponsored event (This is no way meant as a bribe.), or if you don't imbibe than a tea or coffee. One more favor -- Please don't give me a long-winded answer with colors, bolds or italics :-), hahaha.Crtew (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Disregard, Crtew (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Didn't want you think I was referring to you in my edit summary at Valerie Harper, where I say, "It's not 'according to ABC,' it's per Harper herself." I know that came from an editor before you. Hope things are well and there's less snow tonight that they're suggesting. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know that that was already in the article, so I would not have inferred otherwise. In fact, I considered removing that phrasing myself. :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

We are just two polite and considerate people . . . ! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream. You reverted quite a lot of things with your last edit, so I'll go through them one at a time.

"Main plot" may not be the best way to description, but I don't know what else to call it. What I mean is, it's the most significant part of the episode, being set up at the start, revisited several times, and the climax. It's also what gives the episode its title, and is what AMC uses to describe the ep in the first sentence of their little 2-sentence descriptions on their site. I obviously can't speak for you, but if someone asked me which episode "Con Men" was, the first thing I'd say would be "it's the one with the auction". So far, the only episode that didn't have an over-arching "plot" like this was the Asteroids one, but that was very much the exception. It also keeps the layout consistent from ep to ep.
The dead spaces within templates (and completely unused fields such as Rtitle) are entirely unnecessary, and only inflate the page size and therefore loading time and bandwidth used. A few bytes may not seem like much, but it does add up, especially when there are multiple templates on a page. Strictly speaking, a lot more dead space can be cut out by trimming all spaces and line breaks (like in the podcasts section) as they make no visible difference to the page, but I agree that this would harm readability in edit mode when there's a lot of info crammed together like in the main episode section. However, compare the entries you reverted to the earlier episodes. I think that as long as the fields are on separate lines it's perfectly readable, and the extra spaces add very little and are therefore unneeded.
Why did you also revert the addition of this week's podcast, or the correction of last week's podcast date from 2012 to 2013?

--Monkeynutbar (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi, can you ce my recent edit on Multiverse (DC Comics) again? Thanks.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the Counting Cars page Python1564 (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your helpful advice. However, there are two difficulties:

It is not always possible to find a published source to confirm an obvious conclusion, such as a similarity between two WP articles.
I don't have a JSTOR ID, because I am not a student or professor at one of the right universities, so I can't read or quote the kind of sources WP respects: namely, peer-reviewed journals. (I seem to have nested two colons—is this illegal?)

Donfbreed2 (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

"Regarding your edit to Judd Winick, inline citations are not needed for the plot or credits information of a narrative work, such as books, films or TV shows, because those works are presumed to be their own primary sources for that information"

However, I have the comic in question in hand and Winick has no work in this issue. This is confirmed by cbdb and gcd. He did have a story in issue #3,9 & 10 but not #4. 76.190.235.140 (talk) 00:12, March 22, 2013

Hi, Night. At Watchmen, an editor has gone into the article, which is on hold due to an RfC, and removed archival links, for some reason calling them "duplicate." Since an article is supposed to be stable during an RfC, and since I and another user, indopug, don't want to violate 3RR, might you take a look and advise, or restore the article to its RfC state? With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream. I don't really understand why you reformatted my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Grio: I responded to one comment and then made my own point. If I choose to put "keep" in bold print somewhere other than at the beginning of the sentence, that should be my choice, and I got confused since now it looks like I made three edits, not two. But that's water under the bridge, I suppose. I am sure there's a link to "AfD is not for article improvement", though I will grant you that it can be frustrating to not see things added to the article if they're mentioned in the deletion discussion. I like to add such sources, in general, when I participate in that discussion, but sometimes my inborn laziness gets the better of me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I got to the discussion so late that it seemed already pretty well decided. But I didn't want you to think I hadn't taken a stroll over there.

So look at us: We've become elder statesmen! : ) --Tenebrae (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Nightscream, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion at this RfC and the various sections that followed it, the latest being "This discussion". Since there are four sections so far, very spread out, I am clarifying that the topics are whether we open with Publication history, and whether citation format should be consistent. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I was trying to keep the notice as neutral as possible, and, yeah, I know the thing got incredibly convoluted for no reason I can think of.

User:Wrath X made edits to Watchmen on March 20 and 21. I copy-edited his edits, removed some ELNOs and the like and reorganized a little, but basically kept his material. I then saw differing citation formats and, more importantly, loads of deadlinks, and I went in and a) found archive links or substituted live links for the dead ones, and b) made the cite formatting consistent. I also added a Publication history, since the article had buried it in a "Release and reception section" midway through the article.

User:Indopug summarily reverted two editors — Wraith X and myself — which included restoring all the dead links, removing the Publication history, and restoring the few instances of poor grammar / syntax that I had copy-edited. Then I think it just became a pissing contest, since a lot of the discussion has just been, in my opinion, odd.

My feeling, in a nutshell: We follow MOS to begin with a PH since it's logical to begin with what something is before going on to how something came to be. Articles with characters having long, complicated publication histories generally have a separate article like List of Spider-Man comics that we do a main-article link to under the PH heading. Characters with simpler histories, like Nick Fury have a self-contained PH giving that information.

Believe it or not, that's it: Having a PH, having live and consistently formatted links, and not having poor grammar/syntax. That's the argument. I'm astonished. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I agreed with Wraith X and basically just copy-edited him.

Judging from the like of Batman, Daredevil (Marvel Comics), Wonder Woman, Hulk (comics), Punisher, Captain America, and others, the actual history of the publications themselves go first, with a "main article" link to a list of publications. Judging from a host of examples without an external list, such as Nick Fury, Green Arrow, Doctor Strange, Namor, Henry Pym, Morbius, the Living Vampire, Dominic Fortune, Falcon (comics), Wolverine and many , many others, we start at the beginning with their first appearances / series before going into how everything came about. One needs to establish what something IS before saying how it got there.

So I've an idea: Why don't we open Watchmen with the PH paragraph that's there, then go into straight into the background beginning with the next extant paragraph, and just remove the header in-between? That way maybe both sides are satisfied: Indopug only has to wait for one single paragraph before getting into his behind-the-scenes, and we preserve consistency across the project. This make more sense that burying the lead and making it harder to the reader to find the history of the actual publications. If Indopug can't compromise for one single paragraph, then that's not operating in good faith. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've had a very good rapport with you from a few months back. I never forgot that. I can only say, you are wise with how you handle yourself on here. I like that! I had an incident a few days ago about the article on 1929's Bulldog Drummond. I consistently do research on Wiki for myself. Consider it a hobby. I found a misplaced photo in a wrongly dated article, so I placed it where it belonged. Unfortunately, I had a few issues with trying to fit it in the article where it belong. I am asking you, can you help with dealing with it.

I don't want to bother you weekly either with this sort of thing either. I know you are well liked on WIKIPEDIA. I find this to be great. This is why I know about you. I thank you in advance. Hired Ghoul (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

OK! We got an understanding here, me and you on the article. Yes, the picture is from 1929. I think it is okay to use for beneficial reasons on the two characters from the movie. Hired Ghoul (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence in getting all of the details related to Mr. Infantino accurate! Your kind comments about my additions are much appreciated. Please see my reply to your specific question over on the Talk page. DoctorSivana (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Why can't I put the cast members of Carrie in the article. All of the cast members I put on the Carrie 2013 page is factual. Just look at IMDB for Carrie 2013 and you'll see I'm not putting unsourced material. Nutball5000 (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering if you would like to join the discussion about tie-ins at this link since Friginator removed the tie-ins even though most of the past Marvel Comics storylines have them (like the Fear Itself storyline where you helped detail the Iron Man tie-ins). Rtkat3 (talk) 6:57, April 8 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.

Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 18:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream, from what I've been told by other users, and from what I've seen, it is usually not appropriate to simply put a list of the subject of a biographical article's filmography and published works. This is especially true of the filmography considering it has no reference associated with it at all and I've seen other articles lose the list of publications section due to it being considered excessive but perhaps mention can be given to the fact that he has conducted scientific research with a reference to a pubmed search showing his papers. That would probably be considered acceptable and not giving undue weight to it. Considering that it is two papers (one of which is from 1991 and that's fairly old in terms of medical literature), unless they were seminal, ground-breaking papers, they probably do not merit the dedication of an entire section. I'm discussing this with more experienced editors than myself but I have a feeling they will agree. I am interested to hear your thoughts about this though and we can try to figure this thing out. Sincerely, TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Working on finding out. As for my experience, I don't know if it's typical or not. I didn't see anything that sounded clear-cut on Wikipedia Biographies of Living People one way or the other. The search continues. If I'm wrong, then I guess I've witnessed other people making some mistakes. Part of the problem specifically with Drew Pinsky's page though is that the filmography lacks a reference at all and his role in the films listed is unclear (cameo, supporting role, star role, etc) though that wasn't really my initial point. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Nightscream, on the contrary, I posted that edit on the talk page in full two weeks ago. Since there was no opposition to it after a couple weeks, I went ahead with it. I think your changes were WP:NPOV violations, but would be happy to discuss on the talk page. Waiting for more people to chime in to see what the consensus is. Fnordware (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought you might like to know that I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Frgewhqwth and unsourced material—hate to poke my nose in, but I thought the situation merited it. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 23:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay! They weren't blocked at the time reported it, see, and I didn't want any more pages to be messed up (like Lauren Drummond was) with broken templates. Should I remove what I posted at the noticeboard, or leave it in case anyone else has a comment? What's the etiquette regarding that? —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 02:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering why you changed the referencing format for the Reception and Analysis sections in Hoodwinked! I've seen several other articles follow the format that I had been using in this article and I am unaware of any policy against it. Personally, I like the format that I had used, since it is less cluttered than others, but if there is a good reason for changing it, than I won't oppose your decision. If we are going to use this format though, you should change the other sections as well, so that the article is consistent. --Jpcase (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I am referring to the removal of the line breaks. Actually, I'm not even sure what you are referring to by a "change in the parameters/values in the citation templates". Could you explain what that is? --Jpcase (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If it makes it harder for people to load the page, then I suppose it can be changed. Again though, you should probably change the rest of the references in the article as well, to maintain consistency.

What changes did you make to the parameters and values? I haven't noticed any. --Jpcase (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate you having taken the time to discuss this with me. I am sure that you have other articles that you would prefer to focus on, but I really would appreciate an explanation as to what changes you made to the parameters and values whenever you can find the time. Also, why did you only change the formatting in two sections? It seems to me that you really should keep the entire article consistent. --Jpcase (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I hope I didn't come across as too impatient. It's just that other editors have dropped off in the middle of conversations with me before and since I noticed that you have been fairly active on the site, I wasn't sure whether you intended to reply or not.

If you are busy right now, then no problem. I would have done it myself, but don't really have the time right now either. If you are able to get to it later, than that's great. Otherwise, I'll probably get to it myself eventually. It's not really a pressing issue; just something that should to be done at some point. --Jpcase (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, would please review the proposal at Talk:Iron Man's armor#Merger proposal, determine a consensus and close the discussion. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that you participated. WP:Closing discussions doesn't say but Template:Archive top says should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators. So if you don't feel comfortable, I understand. There is a noticeboard but it has a backlog going back for months.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Just letting you know I responded to your comments on the talk page. If there are better ways to clean-up the article, I'm all for it. Cheers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you write out the entire outline for 8213: Gacy House and Anneliese: The Exorcist Tapes on its pages. I'm so sick of seeing its overall synopsis. Nutball5000 (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

By outline, I mean write out the entire movies for 8213: Gacy House and Anneliese: The Exorcist Tapes. And why do you have to see the movie to write it out? There's about a thousand movies written out on here and there's no way you've seen all of them. Nutball5000 (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

By "write out the entire movies" I mean write out the full synopsis, beginning to end, scene after scene, in atleast 7 paragraphs. Because I never saw Anneliese: The Exorcist Tapes or 8213: Gacy House and I want to read what happens from beginning to end. Nutball5000 (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, can you watch both of the movies and then write out the synopsis's? Nutball5000 (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't know how to dispense of the banners because they appear every time I leave you a message. Now would you please stop fussing about the banners and write out the synopsis's for 8213: Gacy House and Anneliese: The Exorcist Tapes. Nutball5000 (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't add a synopsis to those articles because you'll just delete them for not "citing any references". I don't know how to cite references; I don't even know what that means. Frankly, I don't know how you guys do it all day. I'm a writer, but I don't know how to add a reference after every sentence. Nutball5000 (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

While I could have done without the offensive "are you kidding me?" in your reasons for your edits of my work, there, I nevertheless agree with them. You did a fine job tightening it up. Please remember, though, that everyone -- especially someone who has skin in the game about which s/he's writing, as I do with Ebert since I kinda' knew him -- needs an editor; and professional editors don't ridicule those whom they're editing. Nevertheless, thank you for your good work. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, hello. I was referring to this edit here . I had made this edit . Someone else made this edit . I actually performed the edit with this program . I usually fill in references with that program. =) AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Good work on monitoring that article, as well as your work in monitoring The Real World article and related articles. I notice how you've outdone yourself in this regard. Thank you! AmericanDad86 (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Nightscream, I was wondering if I could get an explanation of you reversion of my cleanup of the Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold article. Thanks! Technical 13 (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream,

I'm curious why you felt my edit was not constructive and how I can make it better? I feel the zombie page would be improved with more visual aids.

Many thanks.

Nate N8dawg (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You blocked this one back in 2010 for five years - how come it's added rubbish since ? - User talk:206.213.157.4. Acabashi (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Cover to "Old Man Logan", a comic book storyline published by Marvel Comics.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spider-Man (Miles Morales), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Marquez (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) 11:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed you have a strange habit of altering biographical section structures for no reason. Recently, you did this on Amanda Filipacchi‎ and Sandra Fluke, but I could find a few more examples if I had the time. Your rationale for doing this appears odd. Are you trying to provoke people into edit warring? I ask because if you are not an active editor or contributor on these pages, you really shouldn't be messing with their section structures, and there doesn't seem to be a rhyme or reason for your edits. In the same way that we don't alter the original choice of citation styles implemented by previous editors, you really shouldn't be altering the biographical section structures. Of course, it's one thing if you are involved in editing these articles, but quite another if you only show up to disrupt them. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Your reason (namely similarity to "Romainia" (!)) for reverting yourself and making Tomainia the spelling of the article is not correct as the spelling of the Eastern European country you're probably referring to is Romania. Another reason to prefer Tomania would be that it evokes mania. Admittedly, sources of equal standing are found using either spelling and since Chaplin is dead there's no one to ask. But the situation is not as desperate as it sounds: in the movie itself during one speech Adenoid Hynkel pronounces the word Tomania in the Tomanian language and he pronounces it To-mah-nee-ah which suggests that in Chaplin's mind the spelling in Tomanian would have been Tomania, not Tomainia which would presumably have had to be pronounced To-mah-ee-nee-ah in the "continental" interpretation of the Latin alphabet. I would say that watching the movie and using the data directly available from it should not be considered "original research" any more than "simple counting". Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 16:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry to put you through a third change of spelling :-) but, just to make absolutely sure,, I've just watched the clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NtBnaarXfg at 00:20:20) and in fact the data from it goes the other way. Hynkel's pronunciation (something like To-meh-nee-ah with the English short e of step, bet, etc., so not To-mah-nee-ah like I wrongly stated above) seems in fact to favor the "Tomainia" spelling. I should have re-checked before I gave you the info. Sorry. In any case it remains to figure out how to include that info in note 7 of the article regarding the two spellings and the rationale that WP uses to favor the one or the other. There should be a way to give a location in a movie just as one gives a page number in a book. I'm not sure time in a YouTube video is a very rigorous reference. There should be something more professional. But at least we have the result that the question can be settled with reference to the movie. That is some progress even though my initial information was backwards. Sorry again. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 18:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

On top of that (again at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NtBnaarXfg) at 0:14:18 you have an image of the Tomainia Gazette, at 0:14:46 The Tomainia Post and The Tomainian Mail and at 0:15:05 the Review Tomainia all clearly with the Tomainia spelling. And at 0:15:01 a newspaper title Riots in Tomainia. There might be more data through the movie for the correct spelling. Oh well. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 18:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A pity you got rid of the list of sources which employ the one or the other spelling. That was interesting data in and of itself and not irrelevant to the topic of the article I think. Saying just that "sources differ" is less informative. Not to mention that you probably had put some work into establishing that list. It's a shame that the data you collected ends up not being used. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 11:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

So much for "original" research. DanielC46 (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried to edit a Wikipedia page from a University library computer station, and got a funny notice up:

Editing from 129.215.149.99 has been blocked (disabled) by Nightscream for the following reason(s): Vandalism: ingoring over five years of repeated warnings and 7 past blocks

I just thought I'd let you know I find this rather funny. Apparently students at the University of Edinburgh for the past decade have spent their time vandalising Wikipedia. Doing work and reading - what's that? :-) So the reason this IP address has been blocked is not that one person is insanely active vandalising stuff - it's that the IP belongs to a university of 30,000 students.

Today's chuckle.

Greetings from a longtime Wikipedian in Edinburgh:-) Keep up your good work! Nimloth250 (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Nimloth250

If anything's come of the cite template, it's news to me. Apparently the {{Citation/core}} templates are all being updated to use the Lua programmming language, which speeds things up and allows for more flexibility. It was said that {{cite comic}} could be based on the new version once it goes live. It appears that some of the templates based on {{Citation/core}} have gone live, but I don't think they all have (I don't think {{cite book}} has).

I don't think anyone showed any support for my version of the template; I think at least a couple of editors were opposed to it (I don't know where the discussion's been archived). I don't know who is intending to do anything about it, if anyone at all. You might want to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics again. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there - I've noticed all the character work you have been doing. I have been having the hardest time keeping up with the Mandarin article, especially the "Films" section, since the film's European release. Could you help me keep an eye on it? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

When I get some time to really study it, I can pull up some diffs for you. There have been quite a lot of edits to the article in the past month or so, so that will take some time. It is a little bit of everything you said on my talk page, but the worst problem had been the addition of unsourced text regarding his appearance in the most recent Iron Man movie. If you have a lot going on already, then no worries. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! :) I imagine that once the latest film is "old news", edits on that article will calm down. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Fall2001TimeOutNY.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for writing about your edit. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your reasoning. I contend that by the standards given relying on MTV's bio, which lacks journalistic credibility and is based solely on Malik's self report, also fails to meet the standard of reliable or verifiable sourced material. So, how can we remedy this? I can provide numerous photographs of Malik and his childhood friends. I can also provide verifiable evidence that his friends not only attended college, but graduated. The friends seen in the season are his high school friends. This can also be verified. I hope you are willing to instruct me as to how to best go about making my edit match the standards you have cited. Thank you. Bertissimo (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Red Bank, New Jersey may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope you didn't mind me merging Equus. I just didn't see him as a notable character. The structure was good but it mostly was ~~secondary sources~~ primary sources. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I did it not realizing you were one of the creators/main contributors at the time. If you have a problem with it I can unmerge it for you since you are a respected editor of WikiProject Comics. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. That's what I mean. Also I need to get one thing clear. One reliable source doesn't prove notability. That reliable information with the reliable source was never really deleted. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Judging the picture and the story, the character sounds cool (except for the name). I can see why you possibly like the character. A big concern I have is more classic recurring DC characters like Tattooed Man,Thinker and Fisherman etc. are being merged now but newer characters like these are still around as articles. I was familiar with these characters way more. I know that could be considered against a guideline but in all honestly it's still bugs me a little bit. I will probably discuss more on the discussion page (or something) on it sometime. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

...and I can tell you know you're style on making these articles the way they should more than others judging by almost other comic book articles. ;) I will probably see if I can be proven wrong on the notability thing by google searching sometime but I ain't holding my breath on finding anything. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷

I'm guessing you didn't mean to revert over 100k off the ANI page, including other people's comments, so I reverted you. I've had odd stuff like that happen from time to time as well. If I'm wrong, just revert back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream, you can't sweep your blatant abuse of something under the rug with edits such as this. Nothing escapes us, you know. Odd, by the way, how trimming ANI by a quarter seems to make no difference whatsoever. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Dennis, how long ago was it, a couple of months, that this happened frequently, esp. at ANI? Was there something wrong? I'll ping the brilliant Dr. W. Keeper; maybe they remember. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

- Sometimes I do it on purpose, deleting half the "problems" and try to make it look like an accident. I just get tired of the drama. No one seems to notice. ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at WP:ANI. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Removing a large number of other people's comments with an edit summary saying you were doing something else, twice in one day, is hard to accept as an accident. Dricherby (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

- On the other hand, it's hard to accept such action from an admin as being deliberate. What's going on? Dricherby (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

- - Probably the same thing that happened here. AGF, please, and consider Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The deletions were indeed accidental; I don't know how I managed to do this accidentally (and more than once, it seems), as I merely wanted to copyedit a previous message of mine that looked unclear. I think I managed to finally do this, and restore the accidentally deleted material. For those of you who had the calmness of mind to realize that an admin of five and a half years was likely not trying to be intentionally disruptive, and were able to restrain yourselves from jumping to conclusions, I thank you. Nightscream (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, it happened before. User:Writ Keeper could have explained it to us already, but he's probably asleep at the wheel, like usual. I don't know where Dricherby's coming from with their comments. Good luck with your other conflicts! You know, often enough I'm amazed that I'm an admin, or that I'm one still, or that my car hasn't been keyed yet (you know, the red Prius). Drmies (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, mans, if y'all want to blank half of ANI with the edit summary "ce", that's your business, but leave me out of it. I'm trying to huddle in a corner, desperately avoiding offending anyone or doing anything of note at all, in an attempt to cling to my shiny admin power. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  - Sorry, guys, and Nightscream in particular. I'd not seen anything like this happen before and, at the time, I couldn't imagine any way it could have happened accidentally. Dricherby (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have responded to the issues you raised at WP:ANI and raised some issues of my own that you may want to address. I have offered a reasonable suggestion for resolving the underlying issues that I hope you will respond to favorably. The ball is in your court. Alansohn (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have raised a series of further issues at ANI regarding your behavior. Before other editors jump in, you may want to provide some explanation, which might help your case. Alansohn (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

A source for the bit about the taxi driver Darkness Shines (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised at the sourcing in the article, all seem to be newspapers. Perhaps Watching the World Change: The Stories Behind the Images of 9/11 p17 onwards may be of use to you, as well as Running toward danger: stories behind the breaking news of 9/11 pXIV onwards. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There that wasn't so hard -- with a little help from Darkness Never Shines. You could have done that from the beginning instead of reverting ... Crtew (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is a reliable source? The situation here with the taxicab anecdote about Biggart stands in stark contrast to the position you staked at the article for Red Bank, where you stated at this edit you insisted that "A press release by Tiffany for advertising purposes on WebWire is not an RS". Not only is the source reliable per the definitions provided ar WP:RS, WP:SELFPUB and elsewhere, the statement is used in an article about a place where Tiffany stated that it was opening a store. For the Biggart article, the only source in the article is from a web site created by his estate that states that "It was a beautiful day in New York. The morning calm was broken by a passing taxi driver who yelled out that a plane had hit the World Trade Center." The site has an inherent conflict in describing events that took place on September 11, 2001, the day that Biggart died, as it is defined to promote Biggart and his legacy. Who exactly told the site that a passing taxi gave him that information? It seems rather funny / ironic / hypocritical to claim that a company press release is not reliable in an article not about the company, while simultaneously arguing here that "The official website of Bill Biggart is not 'promotional', nor does it fit any of the other examples offered at Questionable Sources. Nor is the information in question contentious." Per WP:SELFPUB it might well be self-serving, even if might perhaps not be "unduly self-serving", but there is "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" based on the fact that neither the taxi driver nor any third party provides a source for this part of the story and it is clear that the claim is contentious. It's not necessary as part of the story and the other factual details about his taking the photos are what is truly relevant. Independent reliable sources may well exist to support the claim, but they are not in the article. It is disturbing to me that WP:RS can be so flexibly used and abused by a Wikipedia administrator to delete material that is reliably sourced from Red Bank while simultaneously arguing at Biggart that tagging the claim as "dubious" is unjustified based on a questionable source. Alansohn (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this analysis. Moreover, I suspect the source provided draws heavily from this promotional website, but since I can't prove it, I'll let it stand. I just don't understand why I get pompous sounding edit summaries or responses with lots of quotes, when it's so much easier to be civilized... Cheers, Crtew (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Information that a company is opening a new store, which is found in a press release by that company, is indeed designed to promote that company.

Mentioning that someone was directed to a given location by a passing taxi driver is not.

Reliability is not an absolute; it's relative to what information the source in question is being used to support. If you don't believe this, check out the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where those who offer their viewpoints regularly make this point when asked about a particular source.

The problem is not that my edit summary in the Biggart article or my responses to you, were not civilized, Crtew, as they were entirely civil. The problem is that you just don't think Wikipedia policy and guidelines applies to you, you don't want to learn them, and don't like being criticized for it. Nightscream (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The material from Tiffany might be questionable in the article about Tiffany, though based on WP:SELFPUB a statement from a company that size about plans to open a store would hardly be unduly self promoting. The problem is that it was used in an article about Red Bank, New Jersey, where the fact that it was written by a major international company about their plans to open a store makes the source obviously non-promotional in that context. No one commenting at ANI agrees that the Tiffany source is promotional. On the other hand, the http://www.billbiggart.com/ web site is intended to promote the legacy of Bill Biggart and it's being used in an article about Bill Biggart. Whether it's to make his story sound more interesting or to aid in sales of his photographs or to help raise money for a cause his family believes in or any other of a series of potential motives (any, all or none of which may be true), the site is inherently promotional in nature and should be used with caution in an article about Bill Biggart. The anecdote that was provided by the http://www.billbiggart.com/ site -- that a taxi driver notified him about the crash of the first plane on 9/11 -- may well be true, but its reliability is inherently questionable as there is no evidence at this website that Biggart told anyone about how he first found out about the incident. The statement is dubious, it has been challenged and the source has an inherent conflict in describing events where there is no independent confirmation that they occurred as described. It is disturbing that based on the facts in these two cases that you still believe the Tiffany press release to be unreliable in the Red Bank, New Jersey article but that a questionable anecdote about Biggart is reliable in an article about him. Alansohn (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It still amazes me that you're an admin. Crtew (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, really. Imagine, telling other people about the site's policies and guidelines when they exhibit ignorance of them, and admonishing them when they refuse to learn them! Why, you'd almost get the impression that I thought that these were the duties of admins or something! Just where do I get off?? :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You said all these kind of things ad nauseum to me when I told you not to paraphrase so closely and before other editors backed my point up and you never acknowledged that what you had said previously was wrong. So I really can't take this kind of talk from you seriously. It seems to me you think there's your way and the wrong way but you just call your way policy. It's not. It's your opinion. Crtew (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I said those things to you quite before you started that matter about the paraphrasing, back when you were trying to add material to the Biggart article that wasn't about Biggart, and no one "backed you up" on that, which the talk page clearly shows. The quotation/paraphrase matter is a separate matter, one that you agreed was resolved, and has nothing to do with your persistent ignorance of policy, or your arrogant, narcissistic belief that being admonished for violating policy or poor article writing skills is somehow unbecoming an admin, when that is precisely what admins are supposed to do. The fact that you now crow about being backed up about the paraphrase matter now, when it has nothing to do with the matter we're talking about now (as if perceiving it to be some minor victory to lord over me), says volumes about both your maturity, and your inability to grasp a single point and stick with it without veering off on irrelevant tangents.

The fact remains that you exhibited ignorance of a number of policies, guidelines and practices, and even after I tried to point them out to you politely, you continued to do so, since you seem to think that familiarizing yourself with them is beneath you. I even listed the different principles you were ignorant of during that discussion here. For your part, you never falsified any of this, or even addressed it. You chickened out of doing so by saying nothing about it, tried to give me orders, falsely accused me at least twice of "speaking for you" (I did no such thing), asked me questions that I had already directly answered in my previous messages, cast aspersions on my adminship, etc. all while claiming that my pointing out that you have poor writing skills was somehow "disrespectful". (You'd think someone claiming to be a Professor of Journalism would have a thicker skin over criticism of his inability to write a cogent, encyclopedia entry.)

In short, your composure on this project has been abysmal, and you continued this behavior this week when you mistakenly mixed up neutrality and source reliability, and after I clarified that point for you, you asserted that idea again, without falsifying or even addressing my clarification, once more illustrating that you either don't want to learn policy, don't comprehend, are being deliberately tendentious, or just plain don't care. Now stop bothering me. I've wasted enough time with people like you. Nightscream (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream, Are you going to strike your comments about me? I have nothing to do with you and your combatant but I have plenty to say about you. 20:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been copyediting Indigo Tribe but when I got to the Indigo Tribe#The New 52 section, I've been bogged down by plot details that are not explained very well. Was wondering if you could take a look? The paragraph is marked up with clarify tags. Thanks! Also feel free to fix up any of the plot sections I've already combed through. -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

, I think that you meant to put it on User_talk:JzG. Cheers, meshach (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

So have you managed to translate your success on wikipedia into real world triumph? How much money did you make last year? How pretty is your girlfriend? Are you in good physical shape?

KISSES AND CONGRATS!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.248.212.69 (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why I cited for attacking you? I was doing an informal online survey for my 8th grade social studies class

That's why I asked how much money you made last year, how pretty your girlfriend was, and if you were in good physical shape?

Why would you see that as an attack? I thought you would be doing well on all those things

love via dynamic ip :) 173.248.212.69 (talk) 19:01, May 26, 2013‎

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spider-Men, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alternate universe (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) 12:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amy's Baking Company (Kitchen Nightmares) 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/Amy's Baking Company (Kitchen Nightmares) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. =TIMMYC= (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I am having a discussion on deciding what villains belong on the Iron Man navbox and what doesn't. I invite you to join if you feel like it. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Great Dictator may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Hulkster1 (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I kind of rushed those synopses on the RW: Portland article before I had to run to work. I think there was also a resolution to the conflict between Jessica and Averey from the previous episode ("Pantsfall") when Jessica felt excluded (by Averey and Anastasia). The episode "Heartbreak Hotel" won't return to MTV.com until June 24 (I find it annoying when MTV does that — making an episode unavailable for one month), but that's all that I could remember in the time that I added those summaries. I had the feeling that you would make some text tweaks and "trim some fat." DPH1110 (talk) 05:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)DPH1110

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing 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.

Aron Eisenberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tales From The Crypt

Jeph Loeb (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sam Alexander

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to apologize for not being around to look into the recent situations you noted on my talk page. I hope to be a bit more active editing now, so, as per normal, please feel free to drop notes on my talk page : ) - jc37 22:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Lowell_High_School_(San_Francisco) seem a little dramatic. Some of the alumnae that you removed, such as Carol_Channing have their attendance at Lowell mentioned on their pages in wikipedia. Would you consider revisiting your change []? Thanks.

Bartash (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jamie Chung, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lowell High School (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) 11:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Heya, just wanted to say thanks for cleaning up after my edit to Michael Golden (comics). It belatedly occurred to me that Golden might have since changed his policy on conventions, and it was really nice to visit the article and find that another editor had already resolved the problem. If you're wondering why I didn't take note of the fact that the infobox pic shows Golden at a convention, my only excuse (aside from sheer absentmindedness) is that I'm not a regular editor on the article, so it wasn't on my mind. Anyways, thanks again for fixing up my oversight; I really appreciate it.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

So you posted on my page that I am violating some rule regarding adding the fact Chumlee has a knowledge of shoes on his page. This is a fact that is stated on the show (Pawn Stars) itself. So I am not sure how I am supposed to reference something that is said on the show on several occasions. It is stated in multiple episodes that he has an extensive shoe collection and knowledge of the subject, as is stated on his page about pinball machines and such. I wouldn't think such a minuscule fact would garner such a warning. This isn't some fact that is degrading in nature. But I have posted a link below to a source stating this. Zdawg1029 (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

http://tblakeraps.com/2012/05/30/chumlees-sneaker-collection-from-pawn-stars-photos/

If you have ever watched Pawn Stars, you would know Chumlee has a extensive shoe collection and knowledge of shoes in general. I am not sure why you are being so adamant about such a tiny fact on his Wiki page. We are talking about two words, "and sneakers". It just boggles my mind you are being like this over something so little, it leads me to believe this is something personal you have against me rather than the information. The fact I added isn't some kind of personal attack like, "he is an alcoholic" or "he has four kids with three women", it is a simple fact stating he knows about shoes, which is a well known fact among fans of his and the show. We are talking about shoes, so who cares. You don't want this tiny, accurate fact on there, then fine, but it is kind of ridiculous.Zdawg1029 (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay so what do we know after watching the show? After watching almost every episode of Pawn Stars, we know Chumlee has an extensive shoe collection and vast knowledge of shoes. Is this verifiable? Yes, hence it is on the show. So what can we conclude from this? We can conclude that Chumlee has an extensive shoe collection and vast knowledge of sneakers. So can we add the word "sneakers" in the brief list of things he has a good amount of knowledge on? Yes. Why? Because it is on the show. I'm not sure why exactly this is being made such a big deal of and scrutinized so deeply. Chumlee has an expertise in shoes, there, end of story. Edit. Submit. Done. Don't take out your frustrations with other new editors out on me. Zdawg1029 (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Does Chumlee have an extensive shoe collection and vast knowledge about shoes? Yes.Zdawg1029 (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It appears that you have failed to create a second AfD debate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yo, Nightscream, there has been an ANI thread started by User:Alansohn about your talk page protection, which can be found here; I'm placing a notification here for him, as Alansohn is unable to do themselves. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

TParis beat me to unprotecting your page. You can't do that. That is just asking for someone to scream "admin abuse!" because the use of the tool was for your own convenience and not the betterment of Wikipedia. Semi-protecting a few hours due to vandalism is one thing, but not this. You can always ask the editor to stop posting on your talk page, or better yet, ignore them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Also see WP:RSN for a response to an issue you raised there. Alansohn (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I did go to that user's page, read their contribs and give them a final warning. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream. I replied to your most recent comment in this thread on the Richard Benjamin Harrison talk page. Thanks for your assistance in this matter. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jersey City, New Jersey may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Park (Jersey City)|Lincoln Park]] and over the [[Lincoln Highway Hackensack River Bridge]].<ref>{{cite news | last = Haddon | first = Heather | title = Greenway Clears Gritty Hurdle | newspaper =
com/article/SB10001424052702304451104577392253494930254.html | accessdate = 2012-12-08</ref><ref>{{cite news | last = Reyes | first = Daniel|title = New Bike Path Connects Jersey City and Newark |

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Scott Snyder may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

humanoid creatures that inhabit the ocean depths. The story shifts between three time periods (the near future, two centuries in the future and the distant past. The covers of the first five

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Spider-Man (2002 film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

* [[Elizabeth Banks]] as [[Betty Brant] <br> As seen in past ''Spider-Man'' comics, Betty Brant is Jameson's secretary who
spider-man-twin-tower-trailers-scrapped.phtml "Spider Man Twin Tower Trailers Scrapped"]</ref><ref>[http://www.aintitcool.com/node/10170 W.T.C. to be Digitally Removed From SPIDER-MAN}</ref> Sony's Stage 29 was used for Peter's [[Forest Hills, Queens|Forest Hills]] home, and Stage

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to George Takei may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

{{Commons category}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Counting Cars episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roadster (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) 11:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

	Great American Wiknic NYC at Prospect Park
	You are invited to the Great American Wiknic NYC in Brooklyn's green and lovely Prospect Park, on this Saturday June 22! We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck :) -- User:Pharos (talk)

After getting abused several times in the past couple of months, you need a kitty.

Bearian (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi!

I was over at the Killer Dwarfs article and noticed, they do need some external links added for information on the group.

I am afraid, I may or may not of ran into one problem on adding two of them.

I always appreciate your time and effort.Hired Ghoul (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi! It was changed overnight. Things happen for a good reason. Thank you for responding so fast.

Hired Ghoul (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing 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.

Brian Michael Bendis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Angela

Shelby Robertson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Michael Turner

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Since you have over 100 edits at Stephen King, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Nightscream. I will be happy to participate in the RfC you have requested there, and will address your questions in that discussion. I have never participated in a RfC, so I want to ask you some questions about the procedure. Please if you would, reply on my talk page so I will have your reply handy for reference, as my questions are procedural and do not bear on the actual discussion.

What is the format for response? Is it similar to AfD?
You have it listed as unsorted at this time. Will a clerk list it in appropriate places like AfD? Please note that I left notifications at the talk pages of the school project and the New Jersey project regarding the AfD for Union.

Thanks. I look forward to this as an opportunity to expand my experience with a new (for me) Wikipedia procedure. Although we are on opposite sides of the table here, I know you and I are both interested in the same thing: making Wikipedia a better and more helpful resource for those who use it. I look forward to your reply. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, I am male, but in the Wikipedia context, I view all editors as just editors, not male or female. My username comes from the reporting mark of my favorite railroad (GTW). Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

From your recent edit on Union Hill, the situation is much more clear to me. Emerson High School and Union Hill High School merged to form Union City High School, correct?

So Union City now shares the historic background of both Emerson and Union Hill. My perspective, and I don't think it is an unusual one, is that the articles are about the schools, not the building they are in. There are numerous examples all over Wikipedia of schools that have changed buildings one or more times. These schools are still covered in an article on the school, not a separate article on each building. I don't have the time or inclination to search out examples of these but my alma mater, Hobart High School (Indiana) is an example.

Emerson and Union Hill are now a part of Union City. Far and away the majority of the editorial content in both middle school articles is about the former high schools.

Middle schools just don't get an article. Historic AfD's show that. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education). The guidelines address it. (WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#N "Articles on elementary/primary and middle schools should normally be merged into the school district article or the appropriate locality article if this is not available.")

So, my proposal is this:

Rename both articles to the former high school names and reduce the content about the middle school in them to a mention that they currently are middle schools, or
Add the content on the historic schools to Union City High School under separate subsections for each school and redirect the historic high school names there and redirect the middle schools to the school district per guidelines.

This seems like the most accurate way to handle this somewhat unusual situation. You would have to agree on the weight of the content in the middle school articles in question being primarily about the historic high schools I think. Either of my proposals seem like a fair compromise. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me make an analogy here. If my family started a retail business selling Halloween masks at 13 Main Street and somehow did something that made it notable for Wikipedia; then moved it to 23 Main Street, it would still be notable there. Say Harvey's YoYO Company took over the storefront at 13 Main from us. The fact that we used to be there does not make Harvey's YoYo Company notable. Same applies to schools. It is about the school, not the building and it seems you are seeing it the other way around. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chris Butcher. Since you had some involvement with the Chris Butcher redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). noq (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

...but just in case...

		The Comics Star
		Awarded to Nightscream because he's awesome when it comes to comics related articles. Hiding T 22:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Not especially, I just happened to see your edits at John Byrne tonight and it made me realise that whenever a comics article pops up on my watchlist it's because you're beavering away on it, and that should be recognised!. I saw you take the Isabella quote out of John Byrne, I'll trust your judgement there, thought the edit summary was good though, very clear as to why you did it. Keep it all up. Hiding T 23:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. TBH, I kinda know the person who made that Edit on Ultimate Spider-Man (TV series). I Posted Not only on it, but it's Unconfirmed & False. You do a Great Job Keeping an Eye for the Page of the Show.T-Nuggett (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This is sort of a different subject on the same article. I sort of was hoping in the reception section we have critics comparing the quality of it to the tv series preceding it and may other Spider-Man cartoons too. I think it's kind of missing that. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! LawrenceJayM (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream,

You protected Angels & Demons‎ in 2010 for persistent vandalism. The page is slow now (movie is four years old now), I would request that you unprotect it or at least reduce it to pending-changes (since it falls far below that threshold). Regards, Crazynas^t 19:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:9.28.06Bergenline19ST.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:9.5.07AMCGardenStatePlaza.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you. It's just that I've seen you commenting on the Gus Fring page during a dispute and was wondering if you could help again. I keep trying to add that Gus is the main antagonist of seasons three and four. I provided sources, and if you do a general google search you find reviews and other sources calling him the antagonist. Yet when I and Television fan have tried to add these, Hearfourmewesique has removed the additions and called me a terrorist. Further, when I went to his talk page to talk to him about this, I noticed that he called another user a "little bitch" on a talk page, and that he is being threatened with a block for another dispute. If you could please way in on my dispute and maybe tell him to stop flying off the handle, I would appreciate it greatly. Thank you for your time 108.76.231.204 (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2013

I hate to keep asking you for help, but he has once again removed the sourced content, has provided no source that validates his position, blames me for not being able to log in, and refers to me as Mr. Google to be insulting. Please help99.155.80.40 (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so you know how to sign your comments. It's a pity you seem to forget it every time you reply to me.

Seriously, though, the article talk page should speak for itself. I've stated everything multiple times, yet there seems to be a strong case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT on the IP's end. This is why I was trying to avoid this discussion as I know it would be futile. This either falls under WP:TROLL or WP:COMPETENCE, as the "sourced content" isn't sourced at all and the same arguments seem to be reiterated with every new comment. Thank you for the SPI by the way, as an admin finally reverted the IP's tendentious content addition and protected the page. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Another request, if you please: I need an admin/sysop (which you are) to WP:REVDEL three diffs ( ), as I accidentally forgot to log in before posting the reply. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It is an accident, let it go. You can even look on here I have accidently not signed. It is nothing personal. Stop making attacks. This not an I did not hear. I keep finding multiple sources referring to him as the antagonist, but even when I provide them, you ignore them. You keep falling on the "Vince Gillian says he is turning Walt into the antagonist". Fine, great, however, when did he says that this is to happen? He hasn't. Further, multiple sources call Gus the antagonist. I have provided, probably around ten of them by now. You automatically say they are unrelatiable when, according to wikis policies they can be used. You blamed me for you not being able to log in, you have called me a terrorist, and make comments about me not signing. Accidents happen. Nightscream, you seem to have experience with him, hence why I have come to you. No matter how many reliable sources I find saying he is the antagonist, they are ignored and I have to hear insult after insult. Please help.99.155.80.40 (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you able to help me please (per the above request)? Please reply. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of suicides may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

"Abbie Hoffman Committed Suicide Using Barbiturates, Autopsy Shows"]. ''The New York Times''.</ref>>
"Plasmatics' Wendy O. Williams Commits Suicide"]. ''[[Rolling Stone]]''. Accessed July 2011]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Charles M. Schulz may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

/MM9.1.1/V9V6-JPV "United States Social Security Death Index"]. FamilySearch. Retrieved 04 Mar 2013), Charles M Schulz, 12 February 2000.</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Epic Rap Battles of History may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[lightbulb]], [[Thomas Edison]] (EpicLLOYD) battles Serbian electrical engineer [[Nikola Tesla]] ([Dante Cimadamore, voiced by Nice Peter).

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Nightscream, your summary accompanying this edit was a bit harsh. The IP has made only three edits to Wiki, and in this case, he actually followed other entries in the paragraph. He wasn't referring to a person as "that kidnap victim" but added info preceded by the words "Among her claims were:"'. Moriori (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the meaning of "That kidnap victim", but I won't revert as you have worded it better anyway. In the sentence, the word that is used to say she "stated that...(rest of claim)". The editor was not referring to the victim as "that kidnap victim". --Dmol (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ImageComicsLogo.gif, 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I see you have removed some items from Michael Gothard's entry. Some edits I understand and some I do not. I always thought the reference to Jill Bennett was a bit irrelevant, and made it seem as if there was some connection between her suicide and Michael's, so I added the fact that Michael's director in Herostratus also killed himself, as I thought this at least as relevant as JB's. However, I see you have removed both references, which I understand. What I don't understand is why you deleted the fact that Michael killed himself; this is well documented, elsewhere online, in an obituary in The Stage. I have his death certificate, which also states that he hanged himself. I know this is unpleasant, but I don't think anyone questions the fact. I think it's a shame you removed the bit about his memorial tree. The tree was definitely planted in his memory, (I was there) as the Forester at Woodchester will attest, and it might give comfort to people, to know he has been remembered. What criteria would have to be fulfilled for this information to be included? valtrepkosValtrepkos (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I found this edit summary interesting, because while it seems to be a convention that a named reference be fully defined in the first instance and invoked with the shortcut in the following instances, it does not seem to create an error to do otherwise. I cannot find anything in the guidelines, other than some examples, which suggest that the first reference needs to be the defining one. Could you explain to me what the technical reasons are, or point me to some discussion which establishes this as consensus? Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Night. Wow, no idea. I see it happened at this edit, and you're right, it doesn't seem to be anything I did. Must be some odd computer thing. No worries — I'll go fix the coding. Hope everything's well. Are you at SDCC? I haven't been for more years than I'd want to say! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a neutral request for comments regarding the use of cosplay images at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#cosplay pics.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Kudos to you for contributing so much time, energy (and patience) to that page and that discussion. I have added my part to the discussion.Dustin184 (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this request, so I apologize if this request seems out of place. I did consider the appeals process, but honestly, I don't think that the block should be lifted altogether. Anyway, at least one of my co-workers has been making a habit of vandalizing Wikipedia. Quite understandably, this has led to a series of editing blocks, most recently the 3-year block that you put in place on July 20. Ordinarily, this would not bother me -- my work IP deserves to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. However, this most recent block is affecting both registered and anonymous users -- and this is what is troubling me. I have almost 19,000 edits and have never been warned, let alone blocked, for my edits. But I am blocked from editing at my workplace as well.

I like editing at work in my spare time. The vast majority of my edits are spelling corrections, but they are useful contributions all the time. I am not asking for the block to be lifted, but if there's any way it can be softened so that registered users (or even JUST me -- I do have a proven track record) can edit from work, it would be greatly appreciated. If not, I do understand, and I will continue to make edits from home.

Thanks for your time. Drpickem (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the block settings so that registered users can edit from it. I apologize for any inconvenience. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was exceedingly fast. Thank you very much. Drpickem (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you persistently chicken out of responding to that, and pretend instead that your "perception" of the word trumps its actual meaning, just so that you can misuse a guideline in order to get your way, says volumes of about your undisguised dishonesty.

Your quote above is a uncivil personal attack. I would appreciate a retraction and that these comments be stricken. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Your quote above is a uncivil personal attack." Wrong. It's a criticism, and a valid one that describes your behavior. You don't get to censor other editors pointing out your behavior just because you jolly well don't like it. I asked you on your talk page, point blank, what definition of "self-serving" you were using, and how the material in question conforms to that phrase, and like Earl King and Arthur Rubin, you stonewalled on the question by simply repeating the original claim, essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "La-la-la, I can't hear you...!" This behavior is transparently dishonest, and not in the spirit of honest discussion, and you have zero entitlement to any apology (particularly in light of the fact that you raised no objection to Earl King making false accusation of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry without providing any evidence or argumentation for it), much less a retraction. Nightscream (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

A valid criticsm would be on the order of: "You are not responsive to my point about X." Your "criticism" is personal. You accuse me of cowardice (being chicken), you accuse me of dishonesty. These are not criticisms, they are attacks. They are attacks that do not assume good faith. You are an experienced editor, why go there? Capitalismojo (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"A valid criticsm would be on the order of: "You are not responsive to my point about X." You don't get to dictate how I point out your inexcusable behavior, and I'm not using vague, Orwellian euphemisms to hide the truth about it. If you don't like me pointing out your behavior, the solution is simple: Stop exhibiting it. When someone makes a counterargument, then respond to it, either by falsifying it, or acknowledging that it has falsified your position. If someone asks you questions about your own position, then answer them. Sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending you can't hear them is indeed chickening out of an honest discussion, whether you like it or not.

"Your "criticism" is personal. You accuse me of cowardice (being chicken), you accuse me of dishonesty. These are not criticisms, they are attacks." They are descriptions of your behavior. You have been asked repeatedly to respond to specific counterarguments with which I have responded to your statements, and you have repeatedly stonewalled, employing the intellectually dishonest tactic of instead simply repeating the initial statement, pretending not to have read the counterargument, and refusing to even acknowledge it. That's dishonest, and it goes directly to WP:STONEWALL and WP:NOTHERE.

If you're not going to respond to my counterarguments because you know that have indeed falsified your statements, and you don't possess the character to admit it, then stop whining to me, and stop leaving these hypocritical little messages on my talk page. They will not be responded to. Nightscream (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought my responses spoke for themselves. I didn't look up a definition to support my sense of what "self-serving" means. I know what it means. Lets look at the definition though:

self′-serv′ing

habitually seeking one's own advantage, esp at the expense of others

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

self′-serv′ing

adj. 1. preoccupied with one's own interests and often disregarding the truth or the interests, well-being, etc., of others. 2. serving to further one's own selfish interests.

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc.

I believe that these definitions (and yours for that matter) fit quite well with Mr. Joseph's statement. He has a personal interest in his film being perceived as an honest documentary and not one that parts of he personally doesn't take seriously. It hurts him to be seen that he included material for dishonest dramatic effect. His response is to accuse the reporter of taking "extreme liberty with" his words, saying his remarks were distorted, then accusing the interviewer of not having a good grasp of english, and lastly suggesting a bad telephone connection might be to blame. So we have a film-maker rubbishing the honesty, competence, and reputation of a reporter in order to bolster his own reputation. This is incredibly clear-cut to me, it seems painfully obvious. Apparently it is not. Do you disagree that he is serving his own interests or that he is disparaging another to do so? Either way it is not "dishonest" for me to disagree with you about applying policy. It is not "cowardice" to fail to address your arguments to your complete satisfaction. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Capitalismojo: "I thought my responses spoke for themselves. I didn't look up a definition to support my sense of what "self-serving" means. I know what it means." That isn't what you said on the article talk page. There, you insisted that your "perception" of the word's meaning was what mattered, and claimed that "the others" in the discussion agreed with you, when about three others shared your opinion, versus seven at the time who didn't.

Capitalismojo: "I believe that these definitions (and yours for that matter) fit quite well with Mr. Joseph's statement. He has a personal interest in his film being perceived as an honest documentary and not one that parts of he personally doesn't take seriously. It hurts him to be seen that he included material for dishonest dramatic effect."

One more time: We're not talking about the content of the film, or how he wants it perceived.

The issue in question is that the two citations claim that he had distanced himself or moved away from some of the film's ideas, and his statement that he said no such thing. That has nothing to do with whether the documentary is an honest one. Pointing out that you've been misquoted has nothing to do with acting "at the expense of others" or "disregarding the truth or the interests, well-being" or "selfishness". If you wanted to argue that the arguments made in film itself were not made with a regard for the truth in mind, then I'd agree with you. The problem is, you don't seem to be able to comprehend (or refuse to acknowledge) that the discussion isn't about that. The issue of his statement that he was misquoted is entirely separate from the issue of the film's content or its promulgation, but you, Earl, Tom and Arthur either don't get this, or don't care, and are pushing for the exclusion of his statement about his position based on your view of the film, rather than on the wisdom of a completely separate matter. That shows a complete inability to reason with any modicum of objectivity.

If I'm wrong, then answer me this: Should we remove all links to the website of the creationist Discovery Institute from the Wikipedia article on that organization, even for pieces of information that do not go to their mission, like the date of their founding or the name of their president, because doing so has the effect of promoting their ideas and their agenda? That is essentially what you're arguing with Joseph and Zeitgeist, isn't it? Should we remove all links to the websites of organizations whose ideas are pseudoscientific from their Wikipedia articles for the same reason? I asked this on the article talk page, but (big shocker!), none of you responded to it. Can you respond to it now, please?

I am not sure about the Discovery Institute website. If you have concerns about SPS there you should indeed do something about it. I think few people responded to this line of discussion because WP:OTHERSTUFF. People would rather stay on the immediate article and issue in front of them rather than discuss broader policy. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Capitalismojo: "His response is to accuse the reporter of taking "extreme liberty with" his words, saying his remarks were distorted, then accusing the interviewer of not having a good grasp of english, and lastly suggesting a bad telephone connection might be to blame." Which is irrelevant to the discussion, since the last version of material that was in the article did not include these remarks, and merely related that Joseph stated that he had not distanced himself from the film's ideas, as had been stated in The Marker and New York Times stories.

Capitalismojo: "So we have a film-maker rubbishing the honesty, competence, and reputation of a reporter in order to bolster his own reputation." Stating that you did not say what others claim you did has nothing to do with "bolstering" your reputation.

Capitalismojo: "Do you disagree that he is serving his own interests.." Serving your own interests is not what the phrase "self-serving" means, as you yourself just acknowledged the actual meaning of that phrase, which is not to merely "serve one's own interests". Again, if I take someone to court and successfully sue them for libel or slander, I am serving my own interests. But no one would claim that such an act is "self-serving". Do you disagree?

Capitalismojo: "...or that he is disparaging another to do so?" His remarks about the interviewer don't matter, because the salient content of the material in question is his statement that he has not moved away from the positions given in the film, as was reported, which is the only content that was related in the article.

Capitalismojo: "Either way it is not "dishonest" for me to disagree with you about applying policy." And I never said it was. You know perfectly well what I pointed out was dishonest about your conduct, and had nothing to do with "disagreement". It is refusing to acknowledge or respond to your opponents' counterarguments, and stonewalling repeating your initial arguments ad nauseum that is dishonest, and you know it. Keep in mind that stonewalling during discussions is not only dishonest as a matter of truth, but it's also mentioned at WP:STONEWALL, as is dishonesty in general at WP:NOTHERE, neither of which mention mere "disagreement". This remark by you is just a Straw Man Argument, which is indeed dishonest on your part.

Capitalismojo: "It is not "cowardice" to fail to address your arguments to your complete satisfaction." And I never said it was. In fact, you did not address my arguments at all, at least until now. Instead, you stuck your fingers in your ears and kept pretending not to have read my statements. This is not some esoteric standard or vanity: It goes directly to how discussions are either constructive or not. If you make a statement, and someone else makes a counterstatement, how are you fulfilling the role of discussion in working out the conflict if you don't respond to it. Repeating the same thing over and over, without acknowledging what others are saying, is a pointless endeavor that does nothing to resolve the conflict, or even effect discussion. At least now you're actually talking to me, instead of just sticking your fingers in your ears. Had you, Earl, Tom and Arthur done son on the article talk page, and consistently, a far greater spirit of straightforwardness would've been exhibited. But not only did you not do so, but you continue to employ propaganda-like spin in your remarks, as you have by pretending with this remark that your problem was a habit of not addressing my arguments to a perceived level of completion. This is a lie, plain and simple, and it is for this reason that I correctly point it out. It's amazing to me that you distort others' words and arguments without batting an eye while simultaneously impugning Joseph for his own dishonesty. How do you justify this behavior to yourself? Do you compartmentalize it? Nightscream (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

But no one would claim that such an act is "self-serving". Do you disagree?

Well according to the Random House definition above "serving you own interests" is "self-serving". As regards your example, of course I agree. But if I were, instead of going to court successfully, merely to state publicly that the person who had written about me was wrong and incompetent that might well be seen as a self-serving statement. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

His remarks about the interviewer don't matter, because the salient content of the material in question is his statement that he has not moved away from the positions given in the film, as was reported, which is the only content that was related in the article.

I think they do matter because It clarifies that the statement is, in fact, unduly self-serving. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, what you consider dishonest stonewalling is a tremendous lack of interest in that particular article and my belief that the issue was obvious and shouldn't be contentious, coupled with summer vacation with my family. What you consider propaganda-like spin is my true belief about the source. I have tremendous sympathy for someone being misquoted in the media. I believe it happens all the time. It seems reasonable to me that Mr. Joseph should have his point of view included. It is my opinion that we shouldn't be using SPS to include it. That's it. If I could find even a weekly shopper with his quote I'd support its inclusion. I don't like SPS, in my opinion this is not the proper way to use such a source. Others may disagree. I really don't care, the only reason I commented on the article was because you asked me to. I have honestly responded. I feel extremely badly used as a result. If one were to assume good faith about the lack of immediate response in an article, perhaps there would be more collegiality. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I made two relatively brief comments on the SPS matter at the talk page. Stonewall invloves repeatedly ignoring consensus. The discussion was pretty new when you asked me to comment. While people were commenting on the 23rd I think its safe to say that consensus had not been established. You were already complaining about WP:STONEWALL even before I commented. I hardly think my very brief opinion rises to the level of WP:STONEWALL, in fact I'd say you were not assuming good faith. As relates to WP:NOTHERE, what is the world are you talking about? What conceivable evidence would you present related to my editing that would trigger that? Really, I'd like to know. You are an admin and veteran editor. Clearly you must have insight that would help me improve if there were such improper activities or aberrant editing practices. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, please do not insert your messages in the middle of mine. I prefer for my messages to remain contiguous and unmutilated, as it makes it easier to discern each person's messages at a glance, which is necessary when composing responses to them. If you want to reference a specific quote by me, I ask that you use another method.

Capitalismojo: "Well according to the Random House definition above "serving you own interests" is "self-serving". No it doesn't. The definition in question specifies a preoccupation with one's own interests that manifests itself at the expense of the truth, interests or well-being of others. Successfully suing someone for libel/slander by presenting evidence and adhering to rules of decency and honesty, is a valid way to approach "serving your own interests". Deciding to commit perjury or introduce falsified evidence because you think the infraction committed against you justifies it, is self-serving. The latter refers to the manner in which one uses their own interests to justify ethically questionable behavior. The former does not. The definition you provided above makes this distinction clear, yet you continue to persistent in deceit by selectively editing the definition the definition you yourself provided? Just who do you think you're fooling by doing that? Did you think I wouldn't notice that? Or that I wouldn't call you on it?

Capitalismojo: "I think they do matter because It clarifies that the statement is, in fact, unduly self-serving." The statements he made on the website regarding the reporter and Joseph's speculations over the cause for the misquote are arguably self-serving. The mere statement that he has not changed his position expressed in the film, as has been reported, is not. Because we are only interested in including the latter, and not the former, your argument is false. Again, do you think the date of the Discovery Institute's founding or the name of its president is "self-serving", simply because they employ self-serving arguments in favor of their creationist agenda elsewhere on the same website?

Capitalismojo: "Well, what you consider dishonest stonewalling is a tremendous lack of interest in that particular article and my belief that the issue was obvious and shouldn't be contentious, coupled with summer vacation with my family." Non sequitur. A lack of interest in the article and family obligations would explain not participating in the discussion. It does not explain what you say when you choose to participate in it. Again, if those you disagree with provide counterarguments or ask you questions that challenge your position, responding to them in a direct and straightforward manner are necessary parts of open, honest discussion. You can choose to honor such principles, or you can choose to mindlessly repeat the same fallacies over and over ad nauseum and pretend to have not read what they have said to you. Disinterest and outside obligations should not affect whether you choose to participate honestly or dishonestly.

Capitalismojo: "What you consider propaganda-like spin is my true belief about the source." No. The propaganda comment referred to your habit of distorting my words, and employing Straw Man arguments and other intellectually dishonest discussion tactics. It had nothing to do with your position on the source, as you well know, and this is just another example of it.

Capitalismojo: "I feel extremely badly used as a result." Oh please. You're not a victim. You're just another unprincipled Net Narcissist who doesn't flinch at distorting others' words or engaging in whatever form of deceit you think is needed when in conflict with others, and then displays a profound talent for self-justification and false victimhood when someone calls you on it. The manner in which you can persistently go silent when people ask you questions or ask you to comment on their counterarguments (which is the more broad meaning of stonewalling), and justify this behavior with fallacious excuses ("I have a family!"), only to then insist that I answer your questions by saying, "Really, I'd like to know", is truly awe-inspiring.

Capitalismojo: "You are an admin and veteran editor. Clearly you must have insight that would help me improve if there were such improper activities or aberrant editing practices. If you want insight, then learn what falsifiability is, and it should be used in matters of empirical fact and reason-based discussions. If you want to "improve", then stop using intellectually dishonest discussion tactics like distorting other people's words, committing lies of omission, refusing to acknowledge counterarguments and questions, and other logical fallacies that you employ to justify these behaviors.

Capitalismojo: "If one were to assume good faith about the lack of immediate response in an article, perhaps there would be more collegiality." I never said anything about the "immediacy" of responses. I focused my reactions on the dishonesty in them. Nightscream (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Heaven knows Cap and I have been known to butt heads on a regular basis; but I really think your comments to him or her on this matter have been unnecessarily harsh and incivil. This is not some fly-by-night spammer we're talking about, but a regular contributor; you seem to be straining to go out of your way to find the worst interpretation of each statement, and the nastiest way to describe it. I'm not bothering to stipulate which interpretation of the substantive issue(s) under discussion I agree with, because it's irrelevant to our mutual obligation (especially those of us entrusted with the Mop-and-Bucket) of simple civility. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

My comments have not been incivil, have not employed "interpretations", and are not relegated in appropriateness to spammers. Cap, like too many other editors on Wikipedia, including at least two others on the article talk page, has engaged in deliberate and knowing deceit, and repeatedly. He has deliberately distorted my words, engaged in selective "deafness", and committed lies of omission, and I have every right to point it out. I'm tired of having to deal with dishonest and narcissistic hypocrites like him, who rationalize their refusals to respond in a straightforward manner with all sorts of excuse-making, but then demand that I answer their queries, as well as the ineffectual enablers like you who don't know how to separate the wheat from the chaff, who consistently get it backwards by giving them a free pass, while pretending pointing out their behavior somehow violates CIV or AGF. An editor makes a blatantly false accusation of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, without providing any evidence whatsoever to illustrate the notion to the exclusion of less nefarious explanations, with nary a word from you (and barely any participation at ANI from any uninvolved admins) but then you start complaining about "incivility" when I point out this behavior. If you think revealing yourself to be one of those "criticism = incivility" types gains you credibility with me, be assured that it doesn't, any more than the behavior of people like Cap. Don't leave any more hypocritical messages on my talk page. They will be deleted, unread. Nightscream (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)'

Re: Request Hi There. I've been away for the past week, and at this moment I am not home. I will gladly weigh in; I did briefly scan the arguments and from what I can see it's nothing new from the usual suspects. The page appears heavily guarded by an unfortunate few who consider themselves its guardians. Mostly, they prefer if you accuse Zeitgeist of being Anti-Semitic. Try making that your opening foray and you can easily befriend them. If you take umbrage for moral reasons and would rather do battle, I utterly understand. Anyway, I will post to the discussion within the next 48-72hr. Cheers sabine antelope 00:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeff Smith (cartoonist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White Castle (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) 11:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream, I felt like I probably added that photo incorrectly, so I appreciate you changing it. I'm actually a friend of Rick's and he wanted a more recent photo on his article. Is there anyway for me to update the photo to something more current while still operating within Wikipedia's guidelines. I've made very few Wikipedia edits, so this is uncharted territory. Thanks! - Utizzle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utizzle (talk • contribs) 20:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Nightscream, Rick took a photo himself today (link below) and I listed what I believe is the appropriate license for use on Wikipedia. Would this work? Thanks again for your help. Utizzle (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

http://rickremender.com/?attachment_id=902

That'll work. Any advice on the best way to upload it? I just want to make sure I do it right. Additionally, should I swap it out on the page or just upload it? Utizzle (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It's up!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Photo-by_Rick_Remender.JPG

Please take a look and let me know if I goofed up on anything. I appreciate your help, man. Utizzle (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm so sorry about that. Everything was going smoothly until I showed up. :( Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not the most confrontational person to begin with, and as a new admin, I'm still reluctant to stand up and tell people what's what when necessary. In the Rick Remender matter, I should have. I'm glad you did, but am sorry I left it to you. Next time I promise to be a bit tougher when it's plain what is right. Lesson learned and much respect to you for saying what you said. One day, they'll call me "Annie Ironfist", you'll see! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I really tried to move things forward, to no avail. Do you think there is enough support to change the image? Which do you personally prefer? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream,

Hmmm ... do takr into account that, as the note on top of my talk page says, I'm on vacation and it's been difficult to do much editing (although with Wikimania starting tomorrow, that may well be changing).

I'm not going to do anything regarding this until I've at least walked up to the auditorium at HKPU, checked in and picked up my badge. That should take an hour at least.

This is a complicated situation. I do agree that Canoe1967 is not acting with consensus behind him, but I think any sanctions would be more legitimate if they had ... consensus behind them. Others may see this situation differently, as so far you've been the only one complaining about this.

Are you here in Hong Kong by any chance? Please let me know if you are and maybe we can discuss this personally. Given where she lives, Anna may well be here too, so we could include her too. Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Sigh.

Well, at least that much we can agree on.

You do not need consensus to block an editor who is edit-warring.

No, you certainly don't ... when there's no argument that the edit in question is against policy and/or consensus. I don't think Canoe's are ... but I can see how other reasonable people might, and an out-of-nowhere block will just make the inevitable AN/I thread ten times longer. Especially when Canoe can make a facial argument that you're owning the article. And that your entire argument can be made to seem like a variation on the wrong version.

Why are you confusing the two? There is nothing "complicated" about that.

I assume that, whatever words you actually used, you asked for my involvement because you value my cool-headedness and impartiality. That's what you're getting. Daniel Case (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I was going to write a longer point-by-point response to the sceond part of your comment, but I see Lexein agreed with you and preserved the revert, and Canoe has apologized for his misunderstanding, something which wouldn't have happened if I'd blocked him. So it looks like the result you wanted has been achieved.

But just think of it from my end. Someone whose last interaction with me was (sorry, I can't find the diff right now) extremely insulting and hostile suddenly comes to me with a demand that I block someone I don't know, doing so in a way that seems to have either missed or disregarded the vacation notice I placed on my talk page over a week ago, before I went to China, in a tone that sounds practically like an order, and then does it again, in the middle of a complicated dispute that takes at least ten minutes to get the contours of. How am I supposed to feel?

Gotta go to lunch now. Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Or did you just miss the content just above that?--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 03:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a reply to one of my comments from Alanscottwalker that I missed and seems to verify what you are saying, if that is what you are saying. Unduly self serving is in reference to the content or information not the reference itself? Such as "I'm the king of the world". "I cured cancer" etc. That is what is meant by unduly self serving?--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 03:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to contribute to this discussion, which arrived while I was on holiday. I don't have anything to contribute beyond what's already been said, so I'll sit this one out. R Cornwell (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Complements on the Page, but I was in a Rush. No Worries.T-Nuggett (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:9.5.07AMCGardenStatePlaza.JPG

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie#Please vote so that the issue is resolved

Near as I can tell, the manner in which requests for input were handled is now being called into question. Since you had a hand in that I just wanted to make sure you were aware in case you wanted to comment. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:23, 28 Jul 2013 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion regarding the Critical reaction section of the article. Would appreciate your input. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Theres a similar discussion at Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film)#Cast picture, where your opinion would be welcomed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

An anonymous editor seems to have altered the opening of Time shifting to a nonsensical, science fiction definition of the term. Since you were the last editor of the article prior to the apparent offending edit and an admin whose opinion I trust, I bring this to your attention to determine whether the edit is appropriate or someone's idea of a prank.--Pennyforth (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TalTelfer.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GoodShep5.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mark Millar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eagle Award (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) 11:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The original video link (Challenge Dailies) no longer exists. The link actually still exists, but the video screen is black. I was originally intending to go through the podcast and find out if Jasmine & Jonna mentioned anything about a possible hookup between Johnny & Camila (about five minutes within) on the original Rivals challenge. I was intending to add this as a source on the Battle of the Exes article, when I stumbled upon Jonna mentioning her passport issue that prevented her from participating in the Fresh Meat II challenge. Therefore, I decided to replace the non-functioning Challenge Dailies video link with the still-active podcast link. DPH1110 (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)DPH1110

WP:BLPN. – Connormah (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edit to the article for West New York, New Jersey seems to have inadvertently combined parts of two different references into one. Alansohn (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

why do you keep adding removing the punctuation from the sentence "On returning to London and civilian life, he joined the Metropolitan Police Service" ?

I don't understand what you mean. I have not added or removed amy punctuation to that sentence !

You indeed added that second period in your last edit/revert. I wasn't sure if this was done deliberately or what, and I'm not trying to make a huge issue out of it, but because you kept reverting it, along with the sectioning matter, even after I pointed it out to you in my edit summaries, I didn't know if you were being deliberately spiteful, or if you were generally unaware of this, and I didn't want to fix it if you were going to revert it again. Can I assume you're not going to revert my removal of the second period? Corbynz (talk 04:27, August 23, 2013‎

I never consciously added or deleted any periods so I'm really not concerned whether you add or delete any. I'm not a "spiteful" person either and I'm rather taken aback by such an unwarranted provocative comment.

Btw, six other editors have stated in the consensus discussion that (and I'm summarizing here) that the UK and US military material don't need their own Level 1 sections, but could be put in subsections of a military career section. Is that a fair compromise to you? Let me know.

Fine by me. Corbynz (talk 03:42, August 22, 2013‎

Do you have any more information about this image ? such as where it was used/published ? please see Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:ThrillaInManilaPoster.jpg. LGA _talk^edits 03:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestions on dealing with User:Richard apple, who has been chronically adding entries as notables to articles for places in New Jersey and elsewhere, without required sources. I've reviewed the requirements of WP:LISTPEOPLE several times on his talk page, but the response is edits like this one to the article for List of people from Jersey City, New Jersey‎, where he adds an unsourced entry with an edit summary stating that the material is "referenced on target page". He knows how to add sources, he just seems to be passively-aggressively refusing to do so. Any ideas? Alansohn (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your two cents on this one. I think that we said the same thing in different words, but it always sounds more logical coming from someone else (and having it come from an admin doesn't hurt). Thanks again also for prodding me to create an article for Sean Connors, as well as for Marlene Caride, which leaves only one outstanding assembly member. Alansohn (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Please join Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn scavenger hunt on September 7, 2013!
Everyone gather at the Brooklyn Public Library to further Wikipedia's coverage of—
photos and articles related to Brooklyn, its neighborhoods and the local landmarks.
--EdwardsBot (talk)

Just dropping by to say that I think you do a great job watching over the Michael Shermer article. Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 02:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a more explanatory edit summary than "Coherent wording" in connection with your edits to this article. While I have no doubts your edit was on the level, I must admit there is nothing in the diff which makes it self-explainatory as compared to the previous version. So please take the time to explain the fundamentals of your edit to slower minds like me, so we can get on with more important issues. Thank you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi! You uploaded this file http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Witzend_MrA_ByDitko.jpg Very very good, but it happens that it's not from 1967, as you noted, but from a 1968 comic book, Witzend #4, Mr. A's second adventure, as you can see here http://www.comics.org/issue/371402/ I fixed it in the article but the file still features the mistaken info. Thanks. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiago CA Leal (talk • contribs) 00:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. In my defense, the article's infobox listed Bridgeville, PA (which is in Allegheny County) as Henderson's birthplace when I made the edit, so by that criterion it seemed logical. The category might still fit him if he lived there for a substantial amount of time. For now I'll leave that hanging. Best wishes. Bjones (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Would the official Star Trek website be considered a valid source for information on new books in the Titan series? Transphasic (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that "production" is a good replacement (on Kirk Cameron) because it's not talking about the production of the movie, but the upcoming airing. Maybe I was thinking of imminence instead of emergence. I've been trying hard to think of something else. "Upcoming" doesn't quite work because it sounds too much like it's talking about now. Any ideas/solutions? --Musdan77 (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's much better. I wasn't sure we wanted be that detailed about it, but that's fine with me. There is one word that I would change (if you don't mind). The first "prior" to "previous" -- instead of having two "priors" within a few words. Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

This was neither a group job nor a free to pursue interests. ON THE SHOW, Joi says she left because none of the 3 jobs SET UP BY THE SHOW fit her interests. There is a CLEAR implication that she HAD to take part in one of these three jobs and that she left because even though Portland has other things, she could not FREELY pursue them as part of the cast. There is a CLEAR understanding that the interview opportunities, where the ENTIRE CAST interviewed, were opportunities given by production. This was not like DC where it was totally on the cast to find things and nothing was handed to them in terms of interviews. It's similar to Chicago: Chicago was parks & rec and the cast split into different parks jobs. Portland was eateries. The cast had a choice ONLY between the three after the thre venues' bosses interviewed them. This is not Nightscream presents Wikipedia. --Wefjkwsjkls (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for putting the time in reasoning your edits against mine. Not much I could find, but this review calls them Chinese and this one acknowledges that they are racist stereotypes – and Trey Parker has done this voice plenty times in past episodes. Maybe it was a bit of a leap in logic on my end to assume that it was a wink at the part of Snowden's story that involved China (albeit a sensible one), but we can agree that at least "Asian" would be acceptable. By the way, they never actually say they're Jehovah's witnesses, isn't that original research too? Chunk5Darth (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, so the punctuation thing I can fix no problem, and the college info was gotten from a few of Danielle Mackey's videos. She's mentioned several times (including on King of the Nerds) that she went to Utica college, for the dual major, and left because the stress of having a full time job along with college was too much, so she decided to leave school. I did not think something like that needed an explicit citation and even if it did, I would have to go through the hundreds of her videos I've watched and hunt down the timestamp, and just, overall, it wouldn't be a very professional looking citation, even if I were able to make it happen. This isn't hearsay, this is a fact she's stated several times both in her videos and on TV. In addition, the removal of the other content was just in an overall attempt to clean up the article and make it more accurate. For example, the line 2 changes (as seen here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danielle_Mackey&diff=574774357&oldid=574708217) were to improve the accuracy of the article. While she does host the Wow Insider show, she hosts more of them now, so I thought it would be more accurate to say she works full time through her channel, as opposed to before, where it made it seem as if she only hosted the WoW show. Also she's started heavily using her Etsy shop, for a variety of gaming related trinkets and signed memorabilia, and this is a facet of what she does as well, which is why I included it in the section that focused on her career. And her subscriber numbers have increased, obviously, so that's why I included that. And further down, the "Gaming and Modeling" heading was changed to "Gaming" as before, despite its title, there was NO mention of any modeling she does (of which she does little to none, beyond taking professional photos to sell and/or give to fans) and to this day, she does no modeling, so I thought the "and modeling" was unnecessary. I also went into detail about some of the games she enjoys, knowing this from a video she did in which she detailed some of her favorite video games of all time (as of that video's air date) She herself has also stated she's played hundreds of console games over the years. Also, I did forget to do the edit summary for these, which was completely my bad, and the lack of citation is because a lot of the information can't be cited. I've gleaned it from being a fan of hers for over a year and a half and watching hundreds of her videos. There's tons more stuff I didn't include here, I only included things I saw as important or relevant to what someone would have on a wikipedia page, especially someone who isn't quite as famous. So could the changes be reverted? I worked hard fiddling and citing and making it look nice, and I think my rationale for 99 percent of my changes is pretty sound. Lemme know if there's anything else you'd need (or Wikipedia would need, I guess) for me to get these changes reverted. You could even message Danielle Mackey directly, and she could confirm most, if not all, of my changes. Anyway, thanks in advance for the assistance!

Edit: The surrender@20 link looks fine to me, even when i clicked the one in your talk message, it went directly to that part of the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishoto (talk • contribs) 03:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well fine, I guess I'll only put the stuff that can be cited back in. But I removed a citation because it linked to an empty page. Just as a note, I like how an empty citation can pass by, but my edits can't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishoto (talk • contribs) 03:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, citation number 2, the CNYhomepage one, is dead. Also, I was in the middle of cleaning up a lot of my past stuff, when u reverted my revert :P I'd reverted it, because I planned to clean it up and fiz the errors you mentioned. I'd removed the citations that could be construed as self promotional, and I placed them in the secondary source area. Check my most recent edit (after I reverted it to my changes, but before this most recent revert to before I changed anything) and u should be able to see my process. Kishoto (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Found out one of the cited sources had the info I'd included about college so I put it back in and cited it. Also, if the information I want to add was revealed in a Youtube video, how would I cite that? Since directly referencing Youtube channels is seen as promotional. Kishoto (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm tired now, so I'm prob not gonna bother doing too much, but there IS a video where she talks about her top 5 favorite video games, and that's where I'd gotten the info about what console video games she plays (or used to play) So I would've cited that, to add in the info about her liking Halo and Pokemon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishoto (talk • contribs) 04:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Please join the Wikimedia NYC Meetup on October 5, 2013!
Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach
for education, museums, libraries and planning WikiConference USA.
--Pharos (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

First off, I just realized you were an administrator, and I find that really funny for some reason, but lucky you :). Second you might want to comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 5, since I actually nominated the IMDb template that is used on BLPs for deletion, since it seems like just asking for WP:BLP violations to me. I could use some support, since all the fanboys are "strong keeping" it, you know since, because they put strong in front of it that makes their opionion madder so much more.</sarcasm> STATic message me! 22:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, you should have gave me a heads up you were talking about references, I thought more experienced editors also did not like using IMDb, as I had only seen IPs add it to a few film articles I watchlist. I would have rather avoided all the bad faith accusations in the TfD discussion, when I was just trying to uphold WP:BLP. I guess I am more used to users with common sense, oh well though. I think the TfD message needs be adjusted too, rather than imply it is a discussion about deletion, it should say there is a discussion about the template going on, I think that is one of the reason it was bombarded with "strong keeps". I honestly see no point in keeping the discussion going, because when it comes down to it, it'll just be a straw poll, and the BLP issues will be ignored. I am thinking about taking it to WP:EL, or something, but after all the uncivilness from some of the commentators at the TfD, I do not know. So as an administrator you can close it as a withdraw, but the early voters showed a support of deleting the unused Template:IMDb bio, so I think that would be uncontroversal to do so.STATic message me! 02:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I know you do a lot of editing on cities and would like to ask your advice. The wiki article for Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, has two lists of notable people. One list is on the main article page, while another list is on a "list of people from Hamilton, Ontario" page. I've seen this used before with larger cities, and I'm concerned about how arbitrary the names are placed onto each list. A while back I wrote a note on the Hamilton talk-page asking why a rock star was on the 'main page', while a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner was on the 'list page'. Someone responded that "it's really about how well- or widely-known the individual is." I looked in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline for some guidance but no luck. Would it be appropriate to seek consensus to move ALL the names off the main page and onto the list page? Any advice you have would be appreciated. Thanks. Richard Apple (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help. I'm going to put a note on the Hamilton talk page about moving all the names to the list page. Cheers! Richard Apple (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I had to check with WT:Citing sources, but you are right; it used to be required that a cite needed to immediately follow the sentence even if that mean you had cites every sentence, but the language has been changed about 2 years ago purposely to remove that requirement, as long as the next cite in prose is connected and from the same source, so that there is no possible confusion about where the quote may have come from. So my apologizes on that. :) --MASEM (t) 22:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have edited Jack Kirby in 2013 that there is a discussion on its talk page regarding the article's infobox image: Talk:Jack Kirby#Photo update.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, you are mentioned at Wikipedia:Help desk#Speedy Deletion Flag. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Your talk page post here is formatted to reply to Gråbergs Gråa Sång. So where you write "Your accusation that I "ruthlessly vandalized your Wikipedia page" is false" you appear to be stating that Gråbergs Gråa Sång made the accusation, which is not correct or fair to Gråbergs Gråa Sång. -- Jreferee (talk)

I don't usually comment on non-pertinent topics or make personal discussions, but I have to say, your photography work is amazing! I am truly impressed and grateful to come across such a unique, real-world contributor! DarthBotto_talk•cont 17:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Not to Sarah Palin you, (I'm Alaskan, by the way), I was thinking this while looking over your photographs of all those iconic individuals. I truly admire your dedication for capturing such shots. DarthBotto_talk•cont 21:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes. What I meant was that I don't really like answering in her typical fashion with, "All of them". But truth be told, I do collectively like your work that I've seen. I hope my vagueness doesn't offend you, because I think it's fantastic that you have so many good pieces that I can't simply choose one! DarthBotto_talk•cont 23:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ThrillaInManilaPoster.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thankz 4 da corrections mate.. Moving it to the film section seems okay 2 me. Please don't use harsh words in your advice..Rameshnta909 (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Rameshnta909

@Nightscream: You don't seem to like the RT template being used in Carrie (2013 film). I have checked multiple times to make sure I don't make a fool of myself. I really don't understand what you mean by saying that the template deletes the consensus. If you look at both versions, mine and yours, it is exactly the same, except for the wording. This is my version with the template added, and this is your version without the template. Both versions still have the consensus.

My version, with the template:

The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 49% approval rating with an average rating of 5.5/10 based on 90 reviews. The website's consensus reads, "It boasts a talented cast, but Kimberly Peirce's "reimagining" of Brian De Palma's horror classic finds little new in the Stephen King novel -- and feels woefully unnecessary."[17]

Your version, without the template:

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds a 49% approval rating with an average rating of 5.5/10 based on 100 reviews, with the consensus being "It boasts a talented cast, but Kimberly Pierce's 'reimagining' of Brian De Palma's horror classic finds little new in the Stephen King novel, and feels woefully unnecessary."[17]

Thanks, Koopatrev (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I am inviting you to take part in a deletion discussion revolving around some of the Marvel Comics prisons taking place here, here, and here so that you can list your say in this. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:43, October 24 2013 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HistoryChannelThanksgiving.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I just removed spoilers from the talk page on The Real World: San Francisco (2014) that was posted last month. Vevmo gives no indication about any replacement cast members. Without reading the spoiler threads, it is unknown as to how long filming lasted. DPH1110 (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)DPH1110

Thank you for your message. I understand there was a problem in quoting a non totally reliable source. Let me try again, by citing a very reliable source, that is the article published by Dennis J. Starr in The Italian American Experience: An Encyclopedia / eds. Salvatore J. LaGumina, and others (New York: Garland Pub., 2000), p.70. which is one of the most authoritative publications on the Italian Americans. When I have done it, please let me know if everything is OK now. Thanks again.--Ghinozzi-nissim (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all recommendations. The article is much better now. There is an interesting article online, which contains further information, including the fact the house was in fact built on 1908, at []. Is this considered a reliable source? It gives more details about the house and the events of the strike. It also says that the strike ended in July, not in June as claimed in the Encyclopedia, which it is correct (see the Wikipedia article on the Paterson Silk Strike)--Ghinozzi-nissim (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand. But I have now found a much better source, that is, a biography of "Maria Botto" in a book published by Syracuse University Press--a very reliable scholarly source. I made new additions following - I believe - all your instructions.--Ghinozzi-nissim (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I think you may check it online at Google Books. It is a very nice biography of "Maria Botto".--Ghinozzi-nissim (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey fool, the NHL link does not mention either Krasne or Bailey. It's irrelevant. The fact that you're digging in to retain it, irrelevant as it is, suggests to me that you like to bicker just to bicker. The link you refer to as reporting by "CBS News" is just a local story by a CBS TV affiliate in LA.

It's very unseemly to devote that large a proportion of a short article to nearly meaningless gesture by a self-aggrandizing fan 10 years after Bailey's death. I note that it took more than a year for anybody even to add this trivial info to Bailey's article. Bailey's career matters to hockey fans. Krasne doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.145.77 (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me make one thing perfectly clear to you.

The next time you violate Wikipedia's policy on civility, including its prohibition on personally attacking other editors, as you did when you addressed me as "fool", or its policy on Assumption of Good Faith, as you did when you falsely accused me, without evidence, of sockpuppetry, I will contact other administrators and have you blocked from editing. You wanna disagree with another editor? Fine. Conflicts happen all the time on Wikipedia, and the way to work them out is to try to resolve them in a civil manner. Begin a discussion on the article talk page. Argue your point of view. Invite other editors to weigh in. But do not attack other editors. Ever.

For now, I'll put aside your obnoxious comments, and begin a discussion on the article talk page. I'll invite other editors to weigh in. But if I see you violating policy again, your editing privileges will be taken away from you.

Also, please make sure you sign your talk page posts, which makes it easier for everyone to know who they're addressing. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, which also automatically time stamps them. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, you make snide comments to others but heaven forefend that anybody respond in kind. You're a classic Wiki admin troll. You clowns dig in on a topic and refuse to permit obviously needed changes just to make yourselves feel important. Hilarious reviewing your previous edits of the Bailey page. Somebody adds the RELEVANT info that Bailey scored a game-winning goal in the '72 Stanley Cup Finals, and you immediately delete it. Why? Because the editor didn't supply a citation for this EASILY VERIFIED FACT. You who had just reprimanded a different user for deleting the obviously inaccurate original version of the fluffing of Krasne, insisting that the thing to do is fix errors rather than delete something factual. Like a said, a self-serving troll is what you are.

As to the topic, get a clue. Krasne is a nobody. His gesture is all but meaningless and certainly inconsequential in the extreme. If the subject of honoring Bailey after the SC win matters, then the fact that the Kings organization honored his relatives ought to be the focus...not some self-aggrandizing fan. There's a story about that at NHL.com. Unlike the pointless link that you insist on retaining, which does not even mention Bailey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.138.10 (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide your opinion at this discussion at the talk page for Scarlett Johansson? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 05:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, man, sorry, Night. I swear, I never got an "Edit Conflict" screen; when that happens, I normally copy-paste my changes to Word, leave the editing mode and then come back in. So odd — more computer weirdness.

It's nice that Nick lived such a long and fruitful life. I should probably buy the book biography. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

hey i noticed you made this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_suicides&diff=580509916&oldid=580427001 but i wanna ask something, if thats the case then is Bartlomiej Palosz's suicide allowed on the page too since he doesn't have a article either? Same goes for Olivia Penpraze (both of them are listed in the 'P' section), I just figured if Matt's suicide isn't allowed on there why are their's allowed? just wondering ya know. --Second Skin (talk) 23:45, November 6, 2013

i'll sign my posts for now on, I recently joined under the name Synthetically Revived but changed my name to fit my favorite Dying Fetus song. I read a lot about the rules, but a few things still puzzle me. Hope I'm not a disruption. Thanks again. Second Skin (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Night. Just a neutral notice to a fellow Comics Project member that you might want to keep an eye on the Steve Ditko article. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed it cause it shouldn't be in that section, and it doesn't really make sense. Koala15 (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Ehh it seems more like fancruft WP:OR than anything, and cannot be in the references section if you think it should be somewhere on the page then move it outta that section. Koala15 (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all the episode list is self explanatory i mean many sites show you where the seasons begin and end, noting some Bloomberg Businessweek article doesn't really add anything. Koala15 (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I think ive came up with a compromise we can both agree on. Tell me what you think. Koala15 (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

First off, I am the one who did that revision you warned me about due to having no citations for a character's supposed death/mere injurings. HOWEVER, I noticed that similar, albeit wordier edits were placed on the synopsis. So either that person was able to cite stuff that I didn't, or you're picking and choosing based on word count, and I have no idea which it is. MRattas (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I cannot really pinpoint anything anymore. The synopsis has been edited heavily since my message was posted. It does say that Tommy was killed by the bucket to the head (at the time of this message), and it shortens the whole Chris/Billy deal to merely having Carrie kill them with no detail. MRattas (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I've left a message for you on the Ginger Cow talk page. By the way, I just love the condescending tone you used. I also love how you went out of your way to complain about my errors rather than fixing them. What a friendly contributer you are. --Sage94 (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Left you another message. Yeah, I really didn't care as much as you, but the fact remains that you are condescending, whether you want to admit it or not.--Sage94 (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyways, you may be giving me criticism, but it's coming off as insulting.--Sage94 (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

A year after his death, editing has died down. "Pending changes" or full unprotection? --George Ho (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Nightscream, Remember me? We met at one of the NYC WP conferences. I wanted to ask you about comic book stores in Manhattan. Could you drop me an email if you have the time?? if not, maybe you can say so on my talk page. Thanks so much Invertzoo (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, had a very eager family member wanting to update my page, sorry for that. Take out whatever doesnt work , fit or Is not within guidelines. JIMMY PALMIOTTI (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed an incorrect punctuation and forgot to add the period back. Oh man, my command of the English language is so bad, I must never ever contribute to an encyclopedia! By the way, "...removed via to digital compositing." isn't correct, and that was YOUR edit. Maybe you shouldn't edit on an encyclopedia. 65.129.120.184 (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Everyone makes typos occassionally, but you one-off IP editors do so with a disproportionate frequency. There isn't a single editor that hasn't made mistakes, but whenever I comes across some edit in which an editor writes a sentence without punctuation, proper spelling or grammar, etc., it's almost always an anonymous IP editor, often one that makes a one-off edit. You wanna compare the level of care you exhibit when editing articles to mine? Go ahead. I've written two Good Articles. () How many have you written? I've gotten two professional writing assignments solely on the basis of my Wikipedia work. Have you? Nightscream (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could give your opinion on an image I am questioning adding. Could you let me know which image you feel represents the Batman: Arkham page better: the one currently on the page, or this one at the top of the article? The one on the page now is more neutral, thus applying generally, but the one in the article, I feel, is a better representation of the main games, as it incorporates the design used by each. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Nightscream. You have new messages at Favre1fan93's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The underscores in the background field are required to set the color of the infobox header. Thanks for asking! Bonnie (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

AJ lee met Lita in stead of deleting it you could have helped me here is the source. WWE has video of AJ lee meeting Lita she then signs a copy of Lita it just feels right and gave her the sharpie she used How was this not included in her Bio its amazing to see AJ meet Lita and now she's in WWE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alX4vwZNhH8 96.254.36.127 (talk) 15:13, November 20, 2013

Take a look at WP:CITEVAR, which states rather clearly that "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference" and that " If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it." I'm not sure what you think you have accomplished or what you're trying to prove, but this is far from the first time you've made similar useless changes to impose your arbitrary preferences, without ever discussing the issue or demonstrating that there is some greater purpose in imposing your preferred standard. Your persistent disruptive actions are exactly what WP:CITEVAR is designed to prevent. The changes you made to the article for Secaucus, New Jersey added absolutely zero to the article and the one dead link you "fixed" and replaced with this link is a copyright violation / Linkspam of a real-estate agency that has improperly copied the legitimate content from the original website. Your changes have been reverted, your one LINKSPAM / COPYVIO source has been corrected and you are free to make the case that there is some reason why this article is better with your changes. Alansohn (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of disruptive editing, or any other infraction, unless you are prepared to illustrate that intent to the exclusion of other, less nefarious motives. If you want to know my rationale for my edits, read my edit summaries, or ask me. You do not assume, in arbitrary, knee-jerk fashion, a negative motive, unless you're ready to face yet another ANI discussion about your flinging WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:NPA out the window.

Apologize for your unjustified accusation, and ask me to explain the edits in greater detail, and I'll do so.

As for the inappropriate copyvio link, point it out, and I'll remove it.

Revert the article again, and I will have it protected until you are willing to discus the manner in a civil manner. Nightscream (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I call a spade, a spade. You are a spade. You aren't getting an apology, and you aren't entitled to one. WP:CITEVAR is intended to address the concerns of editors like you disrupting an article to impose their preferred format and wording. You have nothing to stand on. There is a consistent citation format used in this article, and you have changed the 99.9% to match the .1% you feel is inconsistent. The ones that are inconsistent with the prevailing standard are the ones that need to be changed, not vice versa. You changed nothing in the article but one link, and the one link you added was a blatant LINKSPAM that improperly copied content that belongs to New Jersey Monthly magazine. All you had to do to see what was changed was to look at the edit history. I look forward to your cooperation in respecting consensus on citation formatting and to avoid any further such abusive editing and arbitrary formatting changes in reverts. Alansohn (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your notice here. A reference shall be found to support that claim. 14.200.68.118 (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream, I was wondering if you could assist me with a quarrel I've been having with an editor on the Gus Fring page. I'm not sure this constitutes vandalism according to Wikipedia's guidelines, therefore I am asking for your expert opinion and possibly intervention. Thank you. Chunk5Darth (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream, I just wanted to say "thanks" for all of the photographs which you have contributed to Wikipedia over the years. As I've worked on various comics creators articles, I've noticed that you provided most of the photos on them. Thanks for sharing your time and talent and have a great Thanksgiving! Mtminchi08 (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Night scream. I've reverted your removal of references at Hinduism diff. Your removal makes perfect sense, yet the reason for this 'overkill' is that there are frequent disputes at this page. All except one reference were given for quotations, to make it very clear that they were sourced, and what source exactly. I hope this makes sense too. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Please join Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon on December 6, 2013!
Everyone gather at Queens Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach
for borough articles on the history and the communities.
Drop-ins welcome 10am-7pm!--Pharos (talk) ~~~~~

That was an accidental revert on my part, thanks for re-adding the information. John Reaves 02:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I have undone this appallingly bad block. Blocking someone for edits they made almost a month previously is needlessly punitive and you were clearly WP:INVOLVED. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have just take a look at the situation above, and you edited through full protection on an article you had been involved with as an editor, another flagrant abuse of your status as an administrator. I am sorely tempted to extend your block in order to prevent further abuse of your position. I hate to say it, but I think you should hand in your tools. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Uh, ok, it seems it is now below for some reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your apology and revert Do it ASAP because it's an article that's "7035 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org" and you inflicted a lot of damage to it and to my hard work. --Niemti (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Nightscream_VS_Jessica_Nigri_.28and_Facebook_and_what_not.29 --Niemti (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 for using your admin flag to perpetuate an edit war in violation of WP:3RR after the page was FPP'ed because of the dispute, and you were specifically notified to cease editing the article until the dispute was resolved., as you did at Jessica Nigri. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: . However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that I'm not specifically saying you're wrong and someone else is right concerning the content dispute itself; but edit warring is never an appropriate solution, period. I'm willing to consider unblocking if you'll agree to not edit Jessica Nigri until the protection expires and/or is lifted due to the resolution of the dispute. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

There was no perpetuation of an edit war on my part. My edits were to uphold various policies and guidelines, including WP:USERG, WP:SELFPUB, WP:NOTADVERT, and WP:PSTS, by removing personal Facebook fan pages, YouTube videos, personal blogs and other clearly non-reliable sources being used as citations in the article, in addition to the various other improvements I made to the article, such as copyediting, formatting, added missing citation publication info, etc. It was the serial policy violator Niemti who engaged in edit-warring by doing blind, knee-jerk mass-reverts of these edits, and now Salvidrim! who has perpetuated it. All of these policy violations (and others) are detailed in this discussion on Niemti's talk page and in this ANI discussion in which Niemti tried unsuccessfully to take action against me by falsely accusing me of "indiscriminate" editing. Now if Salvidrim! or anyone else wants to have a discussion that the YouTube videos of anonymous nobodies and fan blogs are reliable sources (note that I retained the videos by Kassem G, IGN and others who appeared to be notable--something that required me to painstaking go through all the citations to check their reliabiity, mind you), then they should begin a discussion and argue why they feel this way. But no one has done so, because no one is challenging the notion that such sources are unreliable, and that the material in question should have been fact-tagged. The only discussion currently ongoing on the article's talk page is whether to include the cosplay/modeling appearances at all, and not about the source reliability issue. So there is no "edit warring" on my part, only on Niemti, and now Salvidrim!, neither of whom have bothered to offer any discussion on the matter of the reliability of anonymous YouTube videos and other user-generated material. (Niemti has argued that Nigri's own Facebook page, which is self-published, should be allowed, but that's a violation of WP:SELFPUB, which is another matter. You can't lock down a page or prevent reverts unless the matter is being discussed, so unless Salvidrim! or another editor have some line of argument or reasoning with which to challenge the reliability issue, as well all the other edits I made that Niemti blindly reverted without explaining what was wrong with them, then my removal of that material, and the other various edits I made to the article (which Salvidrim! apparently did not examine) should be judged to be valid. Since there was no discussion of this, there was no "edit warring", as Niemti was already warned by several other admins on his talk page and at ANI that he was the one who was in the wrong. There was no intent to edit war on my part, and blocking me, when Niemti himself suffered no such sanctions, is backwards.

Decline reason:

"I was right" isn't an exemption to 3RR. Neither is "the other person was wrong", "the other person was edit warring too", "nobody was discussing on the talk page", or for that matter "the blocking admin is not debating content with me". BLP-related edits can be exempt from 3RR if the information is so incorrect or poorly sourced as to be potentially damaging to the person, but the discussions you cite in your unblock request indicate that you knew perfectly well that your interpretation of these guidelines was being questioned and that this was not an uncontroversial matter. Even so, you could quite probably write a successful unblock request based on controversial-but-defensible BLP choices if you weren't also using this unblock request to say that you feel your behavior was perfectly right, that everyone else was out to get you, and that you intend to continue edit warring as much as you feel like it until the other people meet your requirements of them. Even if you initial reverts were a defensible BLP choice, getting into a knock-down-drag-out edit war, rather than seeking help on BLPN, ANI, or AN3, was an extremely poor choice and I would not be inclined to unblock you as long as your argument is that you will continue a disruptive edit war as much you like if you're unblocked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"I was right" isn't an exemption to 3RR. Neither is "the other person was wrong", "the other person was edit warring too"..

None of which were among my arguments. This is a Straw Man argument on your part.

"...but the discussions you cite in your unblock request indicate that you knew perfectly well that your interpretation of these guidelines was being questioned.."

No, I made it clear that the matter was dropped, as Niemti did not pursue the matter beyond the discussion on his talk page. Putting aside the fact that his conduct in that discussion consisted almost entirely of insulting, telling me ad nauseam to "go read WP:SELFPUB", refusing to elaborate on his position, refusing to answer my requests for clarification, etc., he made it clear, after other admins stepped in, that he was dropping the matter and taking it to ANI. After that, he did not pursue the issue of the Facebook fan page and Nigri's other self-published sources, and never once during the discussion brought up the matter of all the other unreliable sources, like those uncredentialed YouTube videos, nor has he chosen to do so in the current discussion on the article talk page, even though he is participating in the separate discussion of whether to keep the table. Nothing about my application of the related policies is being "questioned".

"I would not be inclined to unblock you as long as your argument is that you will continue a disruptive edit war as much you like if you're unblocked."

And since I have not made any such indication, this is another Straw Man on your part. I've always made it clear in my years here that I abide by consensus, even when I disagree with it. Had I known that reverting an undisputed aspect of a clearly disruptive edit on Niemti's part would've been considered "edit warring", then I obviously would not have done it, now would I? Nightscream (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Even if we consider your first first removal not to technically be a revert, you still proceded to revert again once, twice, thrice and again a fourth time in the span of about 18 hours; the last revert came after after the article was FPP'ed due to the ongoing dispute and you were specifically notified not to continue warring through the protection just because you're technically an admin. That is a clear violation of WP:3RR. As mentioned above, I'm not saying anything about the content dispute itself, but the way you are warring is entirely inappropriate. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Niemti reverted three times and then stopped reverting and instead started discussing on the talk page, which is what should be done. You can blame him for sometimes having an abrasive attitude but he knows where the limits stand on edit wars and generally tries to work within the policy in resolving the disputes he's involved in. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

But Salv, what complicates things is that you also used your admin tools to revert things, and you did so before Nightscream. Whydid you revert to the pre-edit war version of things after the page was protected? As far as I know, the standard operating procedure is to leave the article as is and don't change it at all, not revert to the last pre-edit war version. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

was under the impression it should go to the last version prior to the edit-war, otherwise it could look like Salv (or whoever the protected admin in general would be) would be picking favorites by protecting a particular version. Also, if everyone were following WP:BRD like we're supposed to, it was be at that same pre-edit war version. As much as I personally believe that Nightscream's version of the article is appropriate, I don't feel Salv was wrong in how he protected it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Salv didn't protect it, OrangeMike did. Salv reverted Nightscream through the protection, which I take issue with. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Per the protection policy: "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists."; I indeed wanted to avoid giving the impression that one party was more "right" than the other. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

But I don't feel especially strongly about that either way and would certainly not mind if the "other version" was the one being protected; I've no opinion on the content dispute itself. I also believe that the fact that different uninvolved admins protected and then reverted to the last pre-war version is a non-issue. I actually went to the page to FPP & revert to last pre-war version and would've done both myself is OrangeMike hadn't gotten to the protection already. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but that was Orangemike's call, not yours (I understand that you were going to make the same protection, but the fact is that you didn't). If you were the one to step in and protect things, that would be one thing. But someone else protected and you reverted out of the blue. Let me draw the next sentence to your attention: "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus". We really need to make "principle of least astonishment" a policy for these types of things. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it may cause confusion, although at this present time I do not think it changes anything in this particular situation (per Fluffernutter's decline of the unblock). I'll make sure to keep your advice in mind in the future. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, then switch it back or something. He already says he doesn't care about the content issue one way or another, and I know it's not the type of thing he'd really have a stance on, so I don't think it was a violation of INVOLVED or anything... Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverting to the last pre-war version when I wasn't the same admin as the one that had implemented the protection may have been a less-than-ideal administrative decision, but I maintain that I hold no position on the content dispute and do not consider myself involved in the dispute itself; I'm not sure reverting to the "other version" through the protection again before consensus is establish will accomplish anything other than furthering the issue at the moment. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Salvidrim! - for the record, someone changed my indent. My above comment was in response to Writ Keeper, not you. I was defending the fact that I felt you were not INVOLVED. I hope whoever changed my indent didn't confuse my point... Sorry about that. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No one "specifically notified" me of anything. The link you point to is of the ANI discussion, which I stopped reading after my last post there, and I didn't read that message until after you blocked me.

Niemti's attitude has not been "abrasive". He has flat-out violated WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA with his disgusting insults directed at me, for which you did absolutely nothing. "Abrasive" is just another euphemism employed by editors here who don't know how to call a spade a spade. He stopped reverting and instead started discussing? Yeah, after I warned 'him that he'd be blocked if he did it again. Your comment that "he knows where the limits stand" ignores all of this.

The fact remains that upholding policy is not "edit warring", and the idea that removing YouTube videos or Facebook fan pages as sources, or undoing his blind, mass reverts is "edit warring" is inane. If Nietmi or anyone else had a legitimate, good faith line of argument or reasoning as to why these edits were wrong, then he should've begun a discussion on the matter. But he didn't. His rambling, incoherent behavior on his own talk page regarding this matter was met with three or four admins who all told him that he was wrong, and after that, he did not pursue the matter. The only discussion taking place now is whether the Cosplay/Modeling table should remain, and not whether the sources I removed and replaced with fact tags were valid. If you he or you or anyone else thought those sources should be kept, then he or you should've begun a discussion on the matter. After I and others pointed out to him that WP:SELFPUB, WP:USERG and WP:PSTS precludes using fan pages, one's own website or other anonymous user-generated, primary or self-published sources for material that goes directly to the subject's notability, the matter was dropped, as Niemti did not pursue that point. In addition, blindly reverting all one's edits (including all my copyediting, formatting, addition of missing cite publication info, etc.), instead of carefully reverting only the specific portions you dispute, is a form of disruptive editing. So when you reverted that article, it was you who were engaging in disruptive editing, and not I. The emerging consensus in the ongoing discussion about whether to retain the Cosplay/Modeling is that it should not remain, and yet, I did not remove it, even though I could've cited WP:BOLD in doing so, arguing that a consensus emerged. Instead, all I did revert your blind restoration of Niemti's utterly inane policy-violations, which is not "editing warring". Your block is bogus, as is the rationale behind it, as indicated by at least two other admins here, and yet all you can do is dismiss everything they say, much as Niemti did during my attempt at polite discussion with him. Nightscream (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies..."
And indeed, Niemti's version violated WP:SELFPUB, WP:USERG and WP:PSTS, and was also a disruptive edit because of all the other beneficial edits that no one has disputed that he reverted blindly.

In addition, I have observed that protected pages can be edited if the edit is not designed to further one of the positions argued in the talk page discussion. Again, no one on the talk page was disputing that the sources in question are unreliable, since they obviously are. The issue is whether to 'keep the table. Not the reliability of the sources cited in it.

The fact remain that Niemti has conducted himself/herself in an atrocious manner, violating a number of policies, blindly revert with obnoxious insults, which continued in his talk page discussion, and in the ANI thread, false accusations, and an utterly abysmal WP:OWN-like attitude. Your actions ignore this, they ignore the actual nature of the ongoing discussion, and come across like an endorsement of Niemti's action. By blocking an admin upholding policy instead of a person you yourself allude to being a serial policy violator, and dismissing the fact that other admins are now telling you that you're wrong, you're seriously calling your own judgment into question. Nightscream (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've said it before, I'll reiterate my offer; if you agree to cease edit-warring on Jessica Nigri, I am perfectly willing to unblock you. The rest is not relevant to your block (Niemti's attitude and/or alleged policy violations, the actual content dispute, the reliability of the sources being discussed, etc.); it can continue being discussed normally. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, there was no "edit warring", because the issue of source reliability, as far as I knew, was no longer being disputed, and you have not falsified that fact. I also do not see where you previously made the above "offer".

Irrespective of this, however, the bottom line for me is, if I see that the community seems to agree on a particular course of action or resolution, I follow it, regardless of my personal feelings, as has always been the case, so if you don't want me to revert the article during the current discussion, then I won't.

But this still presents a problem: Once the current discussion is concluded: Can I revert the article then? I ask, because again, no one is discussing the issue of whether the sources in question violate WP:PSTS, WP:SELFPUB or WP:USERG, and this includes citations in the article's body text, and not just the Cosplay/Modeling table, so even if the table is removed entirely, those sources are will still remain elsewhere in the article, and neither Niemti nor anyone else is arguing that they're reliable. Let me know. Nightscream (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I see where you made your offer above. Yes, I will not edit the article as long as the discussion continues.

I'd would still like to know your views on how the discussion on inclusion of the table apply to the edits by Niemti that are unrelated to that. Nightscream (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

While reviewing this, one part that sticks out to me is this edit because of the summary "...WP:SELFPUB supports my position, not yours. Revert again, and you'll be blocked." This doesn't interpret well to me but maybe I have misunderstood. Can you clarify?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure. What aspect of it do you wish me to clarify? Nightscream (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It has the appearance that you are involved in a content dispute and have threatened blocking directly instead of reporting to a noticeboard.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The warning was for the policy violations mentioned in the edit summary.

A content "dispute" (as opposed to unambiguous disruptive editing) implies that the editors in question have a good faith position regarding the proper implementation/application of policies and guidelines. The editor in question offered no rationale in most of his reverts, and in those in which he/she did, it amounted to "now go and learn2read and learn2hear, too" or "maybe you should again read about own's facebook pages, or learn2read", or similarly incivil remarks. If the two or more editors have a genuine content dispute, then they should discuss on it a talk page. When I tried to open a dialogue on his talk page, he offered almost nothing in the way of discussing his interpretation of policies and guidelines, preferring instead to continue his insults, to tell me to "go read WP:SELFPUB" ad nauseam (while refusing to explain what aspect of that policy he was referring to or how it applied), falsely accusing me of incivility, and repeatedly refusing my requests for clarification, including my request for him to point out where I was incivil to him. He eventually provided the interpretation of the policy in question, albeit screaming it in all-caps and stating that he would "take it to the admins", despite the fact that by then, three admins already chimed in on his talk page to tell him that he was wrong. Because he continued to not merely revert during the discussion, but also blindly and indiscriminately revert all the other edits I made to the article, the warning was perfectly justified, though I would've contacted an uninvolved admin for it had he continued. Nightscream (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and assurance which helps clear things up and prevents giving the wrong impression. Cheers,
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I've unblocked you per your agreement to the requested condition, which is simply to not edit Jessica Nigri through the current FPP in order to allow discussions to continue; I am glad that you seek to continue trying to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page and hope that some sort of agreement will come out of it to ensure the article is properly balanced between "respect for our content policies" and "sufficient coverage of Nigri's work as a cosplayer". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question about how the source reliability issue isn't being discussed or disputed, and what this will mean when the entirely separate issue of the inclusion of the table is resolved. Can you offer your thoughts on that? Nightscream (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what answer you're looking. Both "source reliability" and "inclusion of the table" and/or of specific work of Nigri are points that can be discussed on the article's talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I find it very alarming that this much discussion is needed to help an administrator understand what edit warring is and why it is not allowed. I suggest you look at {{ewblock}}, which is a template used to explain to blocked users why they should not expect to be shielded from the consequences of edit warring and suggests what other options might be a better solution than warring. If you can't grasp that the content dispute is not an administrative issue and edit warring is you really shouldn't be an admin at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Both "source reliability" and "inclusion of the table" and/or of specific work of Nigri are points that can be discussed on the article's talk page.

But the source reliability isn't being discussed on the talk page. The editor who kept reverting content with sources that clearly violated WP:USERG, WP:PSTS and WP:SELFPUB has not pursued the matter. Are you going to argue that those sources should remain? If not, then who is? That issue is no longer being disputed! What part of this are you not getting?

I suggest you look at {{ewblock}}, which is a template used to explain to blocked users why they should not expect to be shielded from the consequences of edit warring...

And I suggest that you look at Wikipedia:EDITWAR#What edit warring is, which states that "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring." The block was bogus and you know it. And if you don't, then you shouldn't be within a thousand light years of participating on a collaborative proejct like this, let alone the admin's mop.

Lastly, can you please stop cluttering up my talk page with bullets? Bullets are for LISTS. They're not for indenting. For indenting, please just use colons, which do not show up in the saved article. Thank you.Nightscream (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If source reliability is not disputed, then... good ? If everyone agrees on the article's talk page to remove some sources, I have no doubt an edit request will be approved & implemented by any patrolling admin. As for your second point, there is no consensus, as far as I am aware, that either WP:USERG, WP:PSTS or WP:SELFPUB are considered "overriding policies" in the context of allowing edit-warring to enforce them, as is the case with WP:BLP, for example. I'm not going to get into a argument with you about the validity of a block that has been endorsed by another admin who declined to unblock and which I personally removed after you agreed to stop the actions that led to it. I suggest you move on; nobody's perfect, I'm not saying you're a bad person or acting in bad faith. I know you're not acting deliberately disruptively and hope that you'll be able to continue improving Wikipedia. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If source reliability is not disputed, then... good ? If everyone agrees on the article's talk page to remove some sources...
Again, no one is talking about this matter on the talk page. No one is talking about removing some sources. The matter is not being disputed. You blocked an admin for no reason, and you just can't bring yourself to admit, can you? Nightscream (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No. I blocked an editor for violating Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring and you, as an admnistrator, should not need me to explain this you. I don't understand what you hope to accomplish by pointing out that you kept reverting while failing to engage in discussion, according to what you just said above. If your edit was not disputed, you would not have been able to engage in an edit war as you did, because there would have been nobody to revert you. I once again recommend that you drop it, and move forward onto continuing to improve Wikipedia. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You kept reverting while failing to engage in discussion...

Bullshit. I'm the one who started the discussion. Niemti is the one who abandoned it, and has not pursued the matter the of the sources' reliability, which is why I understood that aspect of the dispute to have concluded. This accusation is a lie on your part, and the edit history proves it. You're just too self-righteous to admit it. "Move on" indeed. Nightscream (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm just going off on what you said, "no one is talking about this matter on the talk page". I have not disrespected you and would like to see you retract your assertion that I am a self-righteous liar; I believe that these insults only serve to tarnish your own reputation. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You did that all by yourself, both to my reputation and to your own, when you enacted a fraudulent block on an admin acting in good faith, with the false accusation of edit warring, and now with the narcisstic whine that being called on it somehow constitutes an "insult". The fact that no one is talking about the matter on the talk page is how we know that the material I reverted is not being disputed, and the restoring the article to the policy-compliant version was a faithful upholding of those policies, and not an act of edit warring. But it all just goes in one ear and out the other when it comes to people like you who just can't admit when they're wrong, right? Nightscream (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If you look at my talk page, I admit plenty of things that went wrong with this; but your claim that your edits were undisputed appears to be a fallacy, as evidenced by your own admission that you had to revert and restore more than once, which indicates someone else must've been reverting you, demonstrating unambiguously that the edit was disputed. While you are free to disagree with my actions (and you might not be wrong to do so), you cannot, in good faith, reject all claims that you were involved in an edit war; that much appears evident. I apologize if you feel wronged or offended by anything I said or did despite my efforts to remain respectful when faced with your attitude, but insulting me is hardly an appropriate response for a veteran admin such as yourself. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream, please, I'm sorry how things went down, but Salvidrim is not the enemy here. Please, focus on solving the issues, within the bounds of policy, at the JN page. Sergecross73 msg me 03:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue was indeed disputed until Niemti dropped the matter. At the time I restored the proper version, no one was disputing that issue any longer, which I've made clear repeatedly. Persisting in the pretense that you don't understand this only makes things worse, and observing this is not an "insult".

Serge, thank you for your words. Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I am very sorry that your actions have come back to bite you. But then you did do things in a manner not within out policy or guidelines...even though in spirit I understand the reaction and agree the article is a promotional mess about a subject of dubious notability in my opinion and sourced to many non RS. Ride it out and see you back in the trenches.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chumlee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rolls-Royce Phantom (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) 09:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

In light of yesterday's incident, you are right about having to add references to the first appearances of the different known locations to Gotham City. If you'd like to help out, you can get a head start with some of the locations. Also, I have noticed that TTN had been doing a merge overhaul of some of the locations into one page. One of them was the Microverse (which was the main setting of the Micronauts). Most of the prisons in Marvel Comics had to be redirected to the Marvel Comics section of List of correctional facilities in comics. What do you think of the location merge overhall done by TTN? Rtkat3 (talk) 10:31, December 7 2013 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your untiring efforts to prevent insertion of YouTube and blog links to articles about popular culture I present you with this well-armored barnstar. Perhaps this helm of defense will insulate you somewhat from astounding, unexpected and arguable blocks better utilized against those who edit against policy, guideline and pillar. Know that even the purest knights get their armor dented from time to time. BusterD (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I have watched the last few days in amazement as a trusted servant, one who was clearly following policy to remove inappropriate links from a BLP of dubious notability, was blocked incorrectly for edit-warring with another editor previously topic banned from at least one area of interest specifically because of edit-warring over such inappropriate link insertions. I also noticed that after the block was removed, that protector of the pedia went right back to normal pattern of protecting Wikipedia from such inappropriate links. Bravo. BusterD (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Due to what I believe is a long-term pattern of misuse of administrative tools and failure to abide by other behavioral policies I have filed a request for arbitration with an eye towards removing your administrator status. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I suspect you may have missed the above notice from Beeblebrox. Be aware that there are serious accusations against you of misuse of the admin tools. A statement from you on the matter should now be your priority on Wikipedia. Continuing to edit Wikipedia without having addressed the concerns raised at the case page might give a poor impression. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream. I second SilkTork's comment. If you need assistance writing a statement, or aren't sure what arbitration entails, please let me know and I will point you towards somebody who can help. Regards, AGK [•] 10:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:ADMINACCT "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Your priority is to give an adequate statement at . Your contributions: indicate that you are not taking that responsibility seriously. If you feel somewhat daunted by the situation, you do have the option of voluntarily resigning the tools - though that would be considered as "under a cloud", and you would need to go through a RfA to get them back. However, that would avoid the need for you to explain yourself, or have your actions examined in public. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You may resign the tools at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As I stated yesterday, I need time to compose a proper response, and do not intend to resign my administratorship. I made this clear yesterday, which was just one day after the case was opened, which is indeed prompt. Please be patient. Nightscream (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

By way of an update on this: you have had time to revert vandalism and post a lengthy comment to ANI about an unrelated matter. If this time had been devoted to responding to the arbitration request, your statement would already have been written. As a result, it is unlikely the committee will wait any longer to receive your statement. AGK [•] 12:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Rs chen 7754 10:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ReverseCowgirl.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream, I want to ask if you could spare some time to help translate this excellent tool ;) toollabs:wikiviewstats into italian language.

italian version of help file (incomplete translation, google): de:Wikipedia:Wiki_ViewStats/Aiuto
english version of help file de:Wikipedia:Wiki_ViewStats/Help

both versions should almost literally be the same. Maybe you could just read/correct the italian version and delete all the lines marked with ---xxx--- (btw it's german ;) ). I would appreciate that very much.

PS: It doesn't have to be a 1:1 translation. Italian users simply should know what's been meant by the program and how to use this tool. Let's be international! Ciao. --Hedonil (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

hey nightscream, yes i can understand why you had to revert the biehn marriage edits, im unable to provide a reliable source other than the fact that I am directly related to Biehn's 2nd wife, Gina. They have definitely separated but i can absolutely guarantee they are still married, however your edit is fair enough with regards to wikipedia's rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.42.150 (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

you linked to the wrong site! silkroad.com is nothing to do with Silk Road Market Place (the subject of the article), as should be obvious to anyone who takes the briefest look at it -- therefore i presumed you were spamming -- it didn't occur to me that someone would add a primary link without bothering to check it out - Oniscoid 22:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I am requesting copy-editing on this article I just made linked on the section header. Mostly because I will be gone for quite a while. More information about it can be found here which you can be a part of. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. I hope you have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Mtminchi08 (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to add this as a reference point to the article. Ron Haddrick

http://www.mjsimpson.co.uk/reviews/christmascarol1969.html Can you help? Thank you!!! Hired Ghoul (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am very sorry on that. Lots on my mind nowadays. Very sorry!

I just type far-too-fast!

Hired Ghoul (talk)

I want to say thank you for all you do on Wiki. The Best!

I did make an error on the name.

Happy Christmas! Hired Ghoul (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I know NS is busy. Could you add this to the article. I tried to figure it out to the actors page. Difficult for myself for some reason or another? Strange. http://www.mjsimpson.co.uk/reviews/christmascarol1969.html Hired Ghoul (talk)

Hi, did you not notice what I had wrote to you? I hope all is well with you. Hired Ghoul (talk)

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Nightscream,

I know you did you best to save this article back in the day to no avail. Draft:Beth Sotelo is available to all editors to work on, so you have all the time you need (in theory). :) BOZ (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the draft space is a new thing, both for brand new but not-yet-ready articles, old user draft pages for articles that are still under development, and deleted or nearly-deleted articles that could show some promise at being restored. It is supposed to be a community thing, to allow everyone to work on the drafts as if they are articles, and when the sources are good enough it can go into article spaces. BOZ (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :)

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

Hi, Night. I'm sorry to see what you're going through and I hope you come through it OK. You're a good and conscientious editor, and you do a lot of free photography fro Wikipedia as well. As for the Marsters photos, honestly, I'm afraid I prefer the one on the right, mostly since it's uncluttered and a more neutral expression. But out of respect for a good colleague, I'll stay out of the discussion there, which I wouldn't even have been aware of without your notification. Happy Holidays, amigo! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not that technical on knowing much about pages like that and am not a administrator but what is going on if you don't mind me asking? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:People from Ocean Shores, Washington, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. ...William 14:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Nightscream. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

→

Arbitration case opened

Arbitration case opened

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23

Comic characters categories

Photo

Mind MGMT

Dan Brown

Fight of the Century

Ira Flatow

Asgardian_appeal

Footnote

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Gene the Dean

Ultimate Spider-Man-related

Talk:Star Trek into Darkness

Ultimate Spider Man And LoveWaffle

Talk: Star Trek Into Darkness

No problem at all

The Courtier's Reply

Jonathan Frid

Martin Freeman

Neutral notice

Short film style guides

Itzkoff, Dave

Secaucus, New Jersey

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

WP:BLPPRIMARY and Gene Colan

Mark Bingham

Saga (comic)

Accessdate/publication date

Celeste Anderson

Scott Allie

Bill Biggart

Regarding your talk section

Scott Allie

Contradiction

Consensus proposal on Bill Biggart

Valerie Harper

List of Comic Book Men episodes

Multiverse (DC Comics):

A pie for you!

Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code

Judd Winick

Watchmen

The Grio

Bryan Talbot

Requesting your opinion

Bulldog Drummond (1929 film)

Carmine Infantino

Some baklava for you!

Age of Ultron discussion

Wikipedia Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14

Drew Pinsky

Touré

Frgewhqwth and unsourced material

Hoodwinked!

Request for closure

8213: Gacy House and Anneliese: The Exorcist Tapes

The "funeral" section of the Roger Ebert article

Bill Maher

Your revision of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

Zombies

Block

License tagging for File:Cover to "Old Man Logan", a comic book storyline published by Marvel Comics.jpg

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Biography sections

The Great Dictator: Tomania vs. Tomainia

Pepper Potts

129.215.149.99 IP block

Comic cite template

Mandarin (comics)

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

The Real World: Back to New York

Red Bank

Equus

Accidentally blanking of content at ANI

WP:ANI notice

Bill Biggart

Indigo Tribe

Just a note that your comment may be misplaced

Protection of Angels & Demons‎