User talk:Nightscream/Archive 5




 * 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

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


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

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

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

Question
Why is your name nightscream —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetnorbert (talk • contribs) 05:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC) 05:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * because... i am curious.... about this charachter....Sweetnorbert (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * what are the charachters hopes and dreams?Sweetnorbert (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * im not going to ask twice, reveal to me the secrets, the secrets of...nightscream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetnorbert (talk • contribs) 05:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!
Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

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

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Fair enough, although I suspect others might object more strenuously to this - he is a knowledgeable and active editor. However, if you don't agree with his interpretation of the guidelines, and as I said I think he has misunderstood them, then there is zero flexibility even when you point out the relevant parts (see recent history of Ms. Marvel, Rhino (comics), Abomination (comics), etc. - note I assume User:203.58.179.34 is also him when he isn't logged in). I will look into leaving him a note pointing out the guidelines because if he does take them on board he could make useful contributions. (Emperor (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Just want to add my support of the block. I've warned him myself recently to no avail. I think, looking at Tendentious editing, if we consider the POV to be a POV of how the page should look, then a lot of that page would apply. Hiding T 15:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a good point - a number of us tried to redirect his efforts and point out problems but he ploughed on regardless, clearly in disregard of consensus. (Emperor (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC))
 * It is hard knowing what to do. I had hoped the arb-com sanctions would help, but it didn;t really.  I'm not really sure what the next step is.  I'm not really sure Arb-com would be helpful again. It's a tough nut to crack. Also, I've just had a message from Asgardian on my talk page. I'll reply there. Hiding T 23:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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


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

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


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


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


 * Nightscream - thank you for the good faith. I truly hope you and Alastairward are not "trading" reverts to keep each other from getting blocked :)
 * Anyway, I hope the way it is in the article right now is good enough. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's all NotAnotherAliGFan has to add, I don't see how we're getting anywhere. The information is still there as a bit of trivia and good faith on their behalf isn't forthcoming. Alastairward (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

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

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


 * There are plenty of sources for Kim introducing the term Inversion -- his own book, Scientific American, Hofstadter's book, Polster's book. Maybe Langdon's book as well, but I'm at work and don't have it handy to check. Hofstadter's book (I'm sure) and Polster's book (I'd have to check) also say that after ambigram was coined and accepted, ambigrammists (except Kim, at the beginning) stopped using the term "inversion". But all that's about the "as a result" part of the sentence and I somehow doubt that anybody (in a book) explicitly tied continued use of the term to Kim's introduction of it. Yet, since he is the only person who introduced it, it can only be traced back to him. This is one of the places where I disagree with Wikipedia's definition of OR.
 * On the other half, the term is still in use by some people. That's just a statement of fact and "some" is a low threshhold. You can find current uses in many places, so how is that OR? Citing some random places that uses the term "inversion" is a waste. As a comparison, I bet you can't find the phrase "Some people call him Jimmy" in any reference work on Jimmy Carter, but it's just a fact. FYI, a search for ("some people call him jimmy" carter) gets 0 hits in Google and in book search.
 * I'd be fine with just the second half -- my question is, is it valuable enough to have in the article?
 * RoyLeban (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine responding here. Some people don't like it. If we don't wrap this up shortly, let's move it to the article talk page. But this seems pretty minor, so let's just finish it.
 * No offense intended, but you're not telling me anything I don't know. I'm a long-time Wikipedia editor. There are plenty of (already cited) sources that Kim originated the term "Inversion" (see Hofstadter, Polster, for example, which are already cited in the article). Are you arguing otherwise? Similarly, it is easy to find many sources that use the term "Inversion" today -- they're all over the Internet, for example. I don't think one needs to site any one of them in particular to consider the statement "some people..." to be sufficiently verified (e.g., try this search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ambigram+"also+called+an+inversion"&btnG=Search). Were the statement "x% ..." or "most people" or anything like that, it would be different. I liken this to a statement like "The web site wikipedia.org is called Wikipedia". The statement is true. Anybody can verify that it is true because there are many places on the Internet that do so. We need not find a source that states the fact explicitly. The fact that they do so is the verification itself.
 * So, to clarify, I am not the source for the statement that Kim originated the term. I am also not the source that "some people" still call them Inversions. The only question is whether those two statements combined are sufficient for the "As a result" part of the sentence. I think they are sufficient. Again, do you disagree? If so, please explain why. Thanks.
 * On the Burden of Evidence issue, I honestly don't recall if I made this change or if someone else did, but, for a long time, the article has had the phrase "also sometimes known as an inversion" in the first sentence (and it still does). "sometimes known" is present tense, so this section is a restatement of that fact, not a new fact introduced recently. I think the only question is whether "as a result" is OK.
 * And all that said, this isn't that important anyway. I was just surprised that you removed it.
 * RoyLeban (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I keep regretting creating a new account with my real name. I've been an editor since 2001. I'm not new. WP policies have an intent. We're supposed to follow the intent. The words of the policy are to guide us in the intent and we should not slavishly follow the words when they cause us to diverge from the intent.
 * There is absolutely no question that Kim's use of the word "inversion" is for the exact same thing. See http://www.scottkim.com/inversions/; see Polster p. 196. See Ambigrammi p. 6. There are plenty of additional references. Feel free to add one, but I think it's superfluous.
 * I know what WP:V says. I'm saying the verifiable existence of something is sufficient proof to be able to say that the thing exists. We need not find another source that says it. We only need a source if we want to say something more. I don't think it makes any sense to argue otherwise. If I were to add a cite to a random web site that uses the word "inversion" as proof that "some people still use the term", it would be immediately be removed as a non-notable link.
 * RoyLeban (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Towelie
Perhaps you might pass an eye over this article. The user from above, notanotheraligfan is insisting on a dead link to be used as an article and popping in some uncited trivia. He/she seems to improve with each block or discussion, but it's hard to get them to discuss this particular article. Alastairward (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In this diff, a dead link and uncited trivia. Alastairward (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Image purging issue
Hello,. You can [ remove this notice] at any time by removing the Talkback or Tb template.

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

Consensus Discussion over Jim Steranko photo
Hi. Could you offer your opinion on the consensus discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I welcome, and appreciate, such notices. I've commented there. - jc37 07:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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

commented =) †B lo o d p ac k†  16:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How did you do that?
I noticed you did something I've been trying to figure out how to do easily. You put the same notice on a whole series of talk pages to get people to comment on a discussion. I'd like to do this for the Ambigram page to get previous editors to come back to comment on issues needing consensus (especially since there's one particular editor who thinks his votes are the only ones that count). I've been looking for a bot to do this, but the documentation on the bots that I think might do it aren't exactly clear. And these edits are by you, not a bot. So... what's the trick? Or did you just visit a lot of talk pages manually? Thanks RoyLeban (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in anything you learn about bots to automate putting information on talk pages. The bots I recognized as possible are User:Diligent_Terrier_Bot, User:ShepBot, User:TinucherianBot, User:NotificationBot, but documentation is sketchy.
 * And, btw, although I disagreed with your opinion re: the crop, I appreciate the consensus building. As a photographer myself, I can sympathize with the guy who carefully framed his photo, feels it captures the guy well and then is annoyed it was fiddled with. OTOH, it's more art than a news image, and that's why the conflict arises. It should be more of a news image, no sepia (even though it works), etc.
 * With respect to the Ambigram page, feel free to comment anytime. I am going to do a little more cleanup on the page (like add icons for the consensus items that are inline before sending out a notification) and it might not happen until early next week since I am slammed this week and have an all-weekend event coming up. It may look a little daunting because I deliberately broke each issue into a separate section.
 * RoyLeban (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


 * Nightscream, I had a look at season one of South Park (here). Most of the articles seemed to be relatively unnotable (going by the notability test and a related discussion on the talk pages for the list of Farscape and Lexx episodes (bit of a disclaimer here, I love those two shows but completely support the merges).
 * I have edited so far the following articles from the list of episodes; Weight Gain 4000, Volcano, An Elephant Makes Love to a Pig and Death. I have also tagged Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo, Pinkeye and Damien (I think that covers them all).
 * I didn't AfD them as I believe that precludes any effort to restore the articles should notability be evidenced at a later stage. Alastairward (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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


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

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

Alastairward
Personal attacks? Care to explain please? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nightscream warned you on your own talk page about uncivil edit summaries. Please point out where I have attacked you. Alastairward (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nightscream, I still await your response as my query was intended for you. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

...and Alastairward again
Please take a look at this and explain how come he reverted twice after I legitimately removed his blatant original research from the page. Work in progress or not, rules are still rules, aye? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You've linked to my userspace, I've explained on your userspace why I can do so freely. Alastairward (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Alastairward is correct, he can revert the item in his userspace freely. Please do not revert Alastairward reversions again NotAnother.
 * But there are costs attached to this right to reversion. When Alastairward reverts other editors edits, his userpage loses legitimacy. He can no longer claim later, if he attempts to move the page to mainspace, that the userpage was a universal group effort which everyone contributed too. Ikip (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ikip, I have no idea what you're talking about. What "legitmacy" is this? If I moved it to mainspace, it would be just another edit in my name, one which can be reverted or worked upon again. It's the content, not the creator that counts. Alastairward (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ikip is right, this would fall under WP:OWN. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

References -> Notes?
Hey. I just saw that on Bridget Marquardt, you changed "References" to "Notes." Is this becoming the norm now on articles? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Real World Brooklyn
Did you not watch the last episode? It stated very clearly numerous times who each voted for, what party they belonged, too, etc. I'm putting it back in. Thanks. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed response. One issue still though - I think Chet and Scott left the election party not because they were offended by their roommate's behavior, but because they were depressed about their candidate losing. There was nothing in their roommate's behavior that was offensive. The pranks played upon them after the party were done because they were Republicans and not because they left the party early. That seems pretty clear, especially if you rewatch the episode. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim Berners-Lee
Hi! Perhaps you'd like to explain this edit? --Pete (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * His birthday is in the biography cited as a reference, and also easily findable on the web, such as here. Hope you get better soon! --Pete (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are confused or poorly-informed. His birthday has been in the article since 2002. I merely updated the template. --Pete (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've filed a quick report at WP:ANI here. You might like to add your comments, because if what you say is true, most of our articles are quite unsourced and should be quickly purged. --Pete (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

Reply from Ian13
Thank you for your message on my talk page. I have replied to your message and would be grateful if you'd continue the discussion on my talk page. Ian ¹³ /t  20:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC) (Ps. you might also want to consider archiving some topics from this page.)

Talk:Skeptical Inquirer
Hola,

Just a note to say I've reverted to the last version of Talk:SI that contained the whole post by the anon (as well as left a note saying "please don't chat", a template at the top of the page and a uw-chat1 on the anon's talk page. I don't really like deleting talk page comments and the overall interaction may be instructive for further editors coming to the page.  Even if the original post is a bit soapy, I think there's still merit to keeping it on the page.  Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Cesar's very first comment is a challenge to the factual accuracy of the page "Please tell me which Skeptical Inquirer issue has dealt with Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) since I don't remember anyone" with a reply of "May/June 2006 issue, see the photo of the cover in the main article". I don't think it's worth getting into an edit war over, so if you really feel strongly about it I won't re-revert, but the risk of it happening again is low, it does contribute something to the page and discussion, and it's over a year old.  I've removed soapboxing comments before, such as when a religious fundie shows up on talk:evolution, but it's part of the learning process of new editors to curb their POV and this one isn't horrible.  At the very least the entire section is related to the magazine itself (bar the anon's newest complaint).
 * Anyway, if you still feel strongly about it, I can't stop you from removing it but I do think it's unnecessary. And I am probably a bit biased 'cause I've worked with Cesar before on several pages (part of the reason I don't think he's a complete POV-pushing waste of time, he does do good work).  Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing and reconsidering, much appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk pages
Hi Nightscream; yes, anyone may remove off-topic discussions. See Talk page guidelines, which states that "[d]eleting material not relevant to improving the article" is acceptable. — TKD:: {talk}  02:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Though FWIW in my opinion anyone can remove totally off-topic comments, not just admins. I've certainly done so repeatedly, but only when it's completely egrigious.  Admins just get to block if the add-ee is persistent   WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Galactus Article problems
Hi, I'd very much appreciate if you could help to mediate in the seemingly neverending Galactus problem? Dave (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm getting really really exasperated with User:TheBalance's consistent reverts to extremely slanted, pov, inaccurate, or arguable information. I'd really appreciate some help of editing the page to a completely neutral version (not necessaruily mine, just sticking to an explicit non-arguable version), and putting a permanent stop to this. It's extremely tiresome, and he's stated that he's going to continue forever. Dave (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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

You're invited...
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


 * If you don't mind, I'd prefer to keep this discussion where it started.
 * I haven't put any words in your mouth. I'm trying to stress the fact that the situation is not serious enough to a) require such a rigid interpretation of policies nor b) indefinite permanent semi-protection. It's a birth date and a place of birth. It's not slander, and it's not sensitive by any reasonable sense of the word. Defending your actions by merely going "well that's all just subjective" is making it really easy for yourself. Claiming that everyone who has disagreed with you so far are ignorant newbies doesn't fly either. After reading your appeal to Jimbo I know that you've been disputing with several experienced editors on this matter, and I'm not the only one who feels you're kinda barking up the wrong tree.
 * I've already tried to start a thread for discussing the issue of Lazenby's birth info and what sources are applicable, so why not reply there so we can at least resolve that issue?
 * As for the semi-protection of the Lazenby article I'm asking you again to unprotect it per the fact that this is a very minor issue that doesn't merit several weeks of semi-protection. I'm guessing the same goes for Jamie Chung. It's not really fair that you try to trump IP users on this issue when you don't even have proper support from established users. ::::Peter Isotalo 05:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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

Verifiability
Just saw the fuss you're making on Jimbo's discussion page. Regarding this, 10 seconds of research are enough to verify the information you deleted. Greetings, Stefan64 (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nightscream, please consider the discussion on Jimbo's page. What you are doing is in essence removing research leads, please move items to talk page or tag appropriately unless they are gross BLP violations. Unomi (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Heads up on AfD
Thought you might be interested in an AfD that's ongoing regarding Brian Quintana, at Articles for deletion/Brian Quintana. You'll remember Mr. Quintana - see Talk:Pedro Zamora/Archive 1 if you need a reminder. Tabercil (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Please watch posting mass edits like this, it could fall under canvassing. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 00:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on the quantity and content of the messages, and the chosen recipients. (As per the page you note.) - jc37 02:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

''Hi. I'm trying to mediate an edit war over the Galactus article here. Can you chime in with your two cents? Thanks.'' Nightscream (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure.
 * I reset the protection to 3 days, and will be leaving a notice on the talk page shortly. - jc37 01:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a time honored edit war with an ever-growing list of participants who all feel that they are equally right and the others are all wrong. :) I'll see what I can do. BOZ (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hope I didn't come on too strong. :) BOZ (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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


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


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


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

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

File:02MA-Claudia1.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:02MA-Claudia1.jpg, has been listed at 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. Postdlf (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Up (2009 film)
Alpha may indeed by a doberman pinscher, but without a reliable source that says so, to characterize him as such is OR. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One does if one has no source for it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One does need a source. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Is he actually admitting he has medical issues here? His comments in his Edit Summaries certainly smack of obsession. There seems to a pattern of appearing for a few days, causing trouble, and then disappearing until the next time. The fixation with OHOTMU also continues. Not really my idea of fun to blow a whole Wikipedia session just managing his outbursts. Thoughts? Asgardian (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have always admitted that I have medical issues, and you are perfectly aware of this. That you choose to use it as a foothold for personal scheming further shows just what kind of person you have consistently shown yourself to be. Dave (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm very calm. I'm asking is there an issue, which he apparently has answered for us (above). How this is handled is another question. I contacted you as you had involvement in trying to sort out the Edit War at Galactus. I would have thought his comments in the link would send up a red flag. Check out the comments in his Edit Summary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/David_A
 * You are trying to use something that I have answered to multiple times in the past as some kind of personal foothold that is irrelevant to the context of you systematically deleting facts and replacing them with your own personal completely unfounded ideas, and then you state that me actually solely basing what I write on the sum total of all available explicit information as "warped" as opposed to your own unfounded opinions. If you're a Marvel writer, then fine, ignore everything that's ever been published and write whatever you want, and then that reference can be added here, but if not, then you can't just censor out the explicit comics+handbooks when in complete overlap information in favour of your own preferred view of things. It's completely intellectually dishonest. Dave (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

As to your question on Commons, yes you can upload video but it has to be properly licensed of course.. and in Ogg format with one of the following extensions: .ogg, .ogv or .oga So you will need to convert .wmv files to Ogg format. There are several for-a-fee and several free converters on the market. Trying to figure them out is another matter. I tried and never could get it right so now, I only upload video I've found that is free to use/public domain and already in the Ogg format. Hope this helps. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 16:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Following up, see commons:Commons:Project scope/Allowable file types as well. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 03:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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

RE: Towelie
I know sourcing is important but generally this is unnecessary in cases where the information is as readily available as the definition of a word. I was unaware that this had been removed before; however, if it was, it probably shouldn't have been. The meaning of the the word okama is well established and shouldn't be under any debate. See LGBT_in_Japan. D 4 g 0 t h u r 08:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see that it is unsourced there also; so see or  or search in WWWJDIC, or pretty much any Japanese↔English dictionary.  D 4 g 0 t h u r  08:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologise for not adding relevant citation even though I didn't think the matter contentious; clearly it was or we wouldn't be having this discussion. As far as not knowing if the creators knew of the word's meaning, it is fairly safe to say that Trey Parker, at least, was aware of it. He studied Japanese and even lived in Japan for a period (as mentioned here (Japanese) and a bunch of other places if you do a quick google search for "Trey Parker Japan" or something). His fluency in Japanese is also demonstrated in various other South Park episodes such as Good Times with Weapons and Mecha-Streisand (and probably others I'm not remembering). Of course, I know that you won't be happy with that, so I've gone and found some reliable sources and fixed it up, stating its relevance. I guess I should thank you for making me not be lazy ~_^ D 4 g 0 t h u r  16:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As you say, you don't have knowledge of Japanese; anyone who has the level of Japanese proficiency that Trey Parker has would definitely know the word okama which is probably the most popular term for homosexual men in Japan. (Especially considering that he lived there.) However, fair is fair and it does not explicitly state that this was an intentional joke so I will reword it to allow for the (extremely remote) possibility that it wasn't. D 4 g 0 t h u r  16:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Misinterpreting policy to suit your needs doesn't make you any more right in this. As it stands, the article simply states the meaning of the word okama - a well established fact - and that this being an intentional joke is a possibility based on Trey Parker's knowledge of the Japanese language - another well established fact. Your removal of perfectly legitimate information is not helpful to the project. D 4 g 0 t h u r  17:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


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


 * 1) Okama means "homosexual or cross-dressing man" in Japanese.
 * 2) Trey Parker is fluent in Japanese, has an active interest in Japanese culture and has lived in Japan.
 * As a result of (2) it is a distinct possibility that Trey Parker was aware of (1) and, thus, (1) is relevant to this article.


 * Now, it seems that your only issue with the addition as it stands is that you believe it to be speculation on my part. So, I will edit the addition to include both facts (1) and (2) with absolutely no unsourced material allowing the reader to come to a conclusion themselves. This satisfies your current argument against inclusion. D 4 g 0 t h u r  17:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine, I give up. Clearly you are just going to (ab)use your admin powers to push your opinion in the matter and there's no way I can win. You've reminded me of why I'm always pushed away from editing Wikipedia; there's too many users like yourself. D 4 g 0 t h u r  05:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation of Wikipedia policy is rather different to mine; I accept that and I accept that your position of power here means that yours will overpower mine. While I may not be an administrator or spend every waking hour editing here, if you took any time whatsoever to look at my history, you'd see that I'm far from an inexperienced editor as you insist on patronisingly suggesting. Please accept that I have dropped this issue and this is the last you will hear of it from me. D 4 g 0 t h u r  06:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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

I apologise if the above seems blunt but I'm not going to sugar-coat it. Regardless of our differences, I hope that you enjoy the rest of your life. Goodbye. D 4 g 0 t h u r 16:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference New York Update: 3 weeks to go
For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Los Angeles and Hollywood

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


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


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

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

London
Where in London is the residence? I don't mind taking a picture of it, but it depends where it is. Laurent (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll take the picture next time I'm in the area (probably within a week or two). If someone else take the picture in the meantime, please let me know. Laurent (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

San Diego
Depending on the location, I can most likely take the picture for you. Send me the address and I'll try to get the image in the coming days/weeks. If you need any other San Diego images let me know as I may have already uploaded them or can take more images. Also if you find non-free images on websites such as Flickr, I may be able to help you get permission for the images, as I have experience in getting image permissions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will be unable to get you images of the LA/Hollywood houses, but if you can find them on Flickr, and give me the url, I can send a request to the author and hopefully get it released under a free license. I may try to get the San Diego image this weekend, we'll see how my schedule goes. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I took an image yesterday, which can be seen here. I added it to the San Diego season page, feel free to re-arrange it if necessary. If you need help with anything else, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk• contrib) 01:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Austin
Yes, I work in Austin and I will be happy to get a couple of images of the residence if you can tell me the location. I moved your request to my talk page. Please add the location there. I should be able to have you something by this weekend. -Regards, Nv8200p talk 14:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Got the address off the The Real World: Austin page - 301 San Jacinto Boulevard at East 3rd Street. Hopefully this is correct. -Nv8200p talk 14:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are photographs of the Austin residence - File:Real world austin house 2009 1.jpg, File:Real world austin house 2009 2.jpg, File:Real world austin house 2009 3.jpg . Let me know if these will work for you. - Regards Nv8200p talk 00:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Sydney
Darling Harbour is a little out of my way to go on a specific trip for photos, but I'll find myself in the area once every one or two months. If you give me the location, I'll try to take some shots the next time I'm there. -- saberwyn 23:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bad news. It looks like the house was part of the main Darling Walk complex. The building was demolished late last year (see the article on Sega World Sydney, the main tenant of the complex for more details). -- saberwyn 09:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

Regarding disputes and reverts
Hi. In general, I think the rule of thumb should be that once actual discussion begins over a content dispute, reverting and edit warring should stop until there is either some general consensus or concession regarding a point. Continuing to revert even while discussing tends to send the message that the discussion isn't being given its due consideration. Of course, rather than revert back and forth, one could always tag the content as a factual dispute, neutrality dispute, request third opinions or further dispute resolution. I can't say any of this necessarily works for me either, but it's realistically what should happen. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, I removed the date linking because that is the trend that will be established whenever the arbcom case is decided and there's little meaning in linking the dates the way they were. I removed the two fansites listed as "references" based on WP:ELNO, the IMDB biography link because they are absolutely not considered valid sources and I removed the regular IMDB page because it is already listed under external links and we don't much use references for filmographies. I changed the filmography table to the standard style recommended by WP:ACTOR. I didn't remove the birthdate, although I put in the birth date and age template, mostly because we have a huge number of biographies with birthdates that are unsourced and I couldn't see that there was a clear dispute about that right now. That fairly much covers my rationale for the changes I made. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My rationale for removing what I did was based on clear policy, such as the WP:ELNO and I felt no need to refrain because I am not in a content dispute with anyone on that page and believe I was acting in good faith. I'm not sure what pages you referenced to the other editor regarding IMDB, but as far as I am aware, there is clear consensus, repeatedly in many places, regarding IMDB content that is user submitted, such as biographies and trivia. The point that most would say has not reached consensus is the rest of the content - screen credits, awards and box office data, and this is all why there is so much disagreement over IMDB. Having said that, I'm not certain that the discussion you had on Talk:Jimbo Wales came to a conclusion about anything, and I'm not sure that I see that Jimbo agreed with removing non-controversial material. He certainly was fairly clear in highlighting that he supports your approach on negative material, but was also fairly clear about the need for a balance. I have to agree with him on that. My view is that a birthdate would be something that one would tag for a source and allow time for that to be sourced, unless there is a reason to think that it is deliberately false. The points others made about verifiability vs. verified seem to apply here and I think that's a valid point. Does that answer your question? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

File:04MA-Angela.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:04MA-Angela.jpg, has been listed at 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.  Zoo Fari  02:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes
Hello, Nightscream. The reason the reference to the same source was placed consecutively like that before you removed them is due to editors or IPs often overlooking stuff that is clearly cited. Sometimes when they see statements such as "They cite that ratings and viewer response are consistently higher for stories involving the couple, and that if the public wants more coverage of the couple, the media responds" without seeing a reference attributed to that exact statement, they feel that it is uncited. Similar stuff like that has happened to that article, and plenty of other articles on Wikipedia, before. Some people simply do not pay enough attention, do not click on the source, or do not click on the source to read most or all of it. I will place the reference back in two spots you removed it from but not the other two spots. Believe me, though, I feel the same way you do about referencing things like that. Flyer22 (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I replied on my talk page (as the talk page says I will, LOL). And thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


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

Edits to Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2
The MUA2 article follows WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. Cast sections are not used in video games, as they denote the actors rather than the characters. If in doubt, take a look at and GA video game articles. --Teancum (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * :That guideline does not say that cast sections are not used in video games because they denote the actors rather than the characters. It says that actors names should not be listed unless they are noteworthy, as with actors from films reprising their roles. It says nothing of whether to use the word "Cast", and indeed, very passage uses the word "Cast" repeatedly, not once indicating that its use is frowned upon:
 * Cast Lists: Generally speaking, a list of the actors providing voices for video game characters is not appropriate. Exceptions to the rule would be games where the voice cast is particularly notable, such as actors reprising their roles in a video game translation of a movie, as in the case of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. In this case the character cast follows the general standard for listing a movie cast, with minor adaptations for the game's article. However, if characters are listed in a table, cast should not be listed separately. If actors/actresses must be added to the article, typically they should be done in the article prose, and generally in the development section. Nightscream (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(Copied from my talk page for clarity)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Roger Ebert reversion
Ebert does not defend giving The Godfather II a higher rating than The Godfather III. The next sentence expands on how he, in retrospect, he has listed The Godfather II as one of his "Great Movies". The 'however' doesn't fit to my mind (if he defended his original ratings and then added it and not Godfather III, maybe) – it's the logic of the sentence at stake, not the facts, so I don't see why I have to provide a reference to make this change. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problem then. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

PH and FCB sections
Welllllll given the source you are right to get a little sodium chloride ready.

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Federal, state, and county representation in NJ city artilces
In my experience, Wikipedia articles on New Jersey municipalities generally include these "Federal, state, and county representation" subsections, stocked with templates for easy construction. Some Hudson County articles, like Bayonne, New Jersey, seem to differ. I think all these subsections could be made uniform with the rest of the NJ municipality articles', and that's what I was doing at the Bayonne article. The change I've made to that is to list only the freeholder who pertains to the municipality in question (e.g. DiDomenico for Bayonne). What do you think? A Stop at Willoughby Current revision as of 19:28, 29 August 2009
 * I disagree with the idea that DeGise, Corzine, etc. have "nothing to do with Bayonne." Both govern Bayonne, whether through the Hudson County government, the state government, or through Congress. If you're going to mention what congressional and legislative districts Bayonne lies in, why not also say who represents that district? Chiappone, for example, is just one of three people representing Bayonne in Trenton -- but he's the only one who merits mention, simply because he's from Bayonne?  To me, that doesn't make much sense. Anyway, it seems that we should take up this topic at WP:WikiProject New Jersey, since this discussion pertains to hundreds of New Jersey-related articles, not just Bayonne's. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I started a discussion on the WikiProject New Jersey talk page and notified active members of the WikiProject. Your input in the discussion would, of course, be highly valued. The discussion can be found here. And feel free to join WP:WikiProject New Jersey by adding your username here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

You're invited...
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Before you lose your buttons...
Please read. ThuranX (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Opinion
Its just after 1:00AM here and I've had a long day in the library, so I will have to look into this when I am not half a sleep; probably Saturday or Sunday. Would that be acceptable, or would you prefer a swifter reply? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you sir. Two more quick edits then its off to dreamland for me :) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

FFD
I don't know if you have any opinion about cast photos in reality TV articles, but you may be interested in this and. Thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears our definition of significant differed from that of the closing admin. I would consider WP:DRV, but I don't know if it's worth it.  I fear that cast photos from other reality shows may be next on the deletion list.  Perhaps it would be a good idea to add a "delsort" category for reality television shows? Thanks for the input even if it did nothing. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  17:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, it should probably have been delsort-ed in Television related deletion discussions. If a DRV is pursued, I will certainly list it there.  It might be easier to just upload it again, and make sure all the "I"s are dotted and "T"s are crossed. Thanks again. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Email
Hi there. I just sent you an email. Amsaim (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Email sent again :). Amsaim (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion policy
Hi. Is there a policy/guideline page that lists criteria by which how an image can significantly add to a reader's understanding of the topic? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)]
 * Er....no ? Just lots of, sometimes contradictory, past precedents and judgment of the person pressing the buttons. If we had such a (dot point) list then the ensuing interpretation arguments would be most amusing; from a distance. Best Regards - Peripitus (Talk) 21:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you'd find such a thing amusing, nor why you think my question might've been rhetorical (or even "retorical", as you put it). Such decisions should be based on policy, and not contradictory "precedents" that are not evidently documented, nor the subjective judgments of button-pushers who don't seem to take the discussion into account. Can you point me to these precedents? Nightscream (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Nightscream, please forgive my tone in the last message - I had assumed (as you have been here longer than me) that you were aware there is no such criteria page and were obliquely questioning my Ffd closure. The one used in these cases is the WP:NFCC list. What I mean by amusing is that, if we had a dot-point criteria, then the subsequent interpretative arguments would (I think) descend into the normal Wikidrama which you can either be amused by or angry at...I chose amused. As a fellow button pusher you know that all policies are descriptive of practice rather firm dictates and usually judgment is required. I took into account the arguments&mdash;the precedents I refer to are those from a great many Ffd/Ifd closures; there is no single page that I can point to. I am aware with these Ffd closures, as for all of them, that the non-free criteria are intended to exclude most non-free criteria and good reasons are needed to keep them. I'll discuss the closure of these two at User talk:Plastikspork to keep this all in one place - Peripitus (Talk) 05:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Question about blocks
Good work at the Brooklyn Book Festival!

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

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

Another one
Is it possible to simply fix the rationale on this one: File:Myantoniocast.jpg? By the way, I've been very busy at work recently, but I am planning to continue the deletion review process on the prior two. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I think part of the issue is that these images (and many others) were uploaded by ElPilotoDi. When he uploaded them, he wasn't the most careful with filling out all the details, which caught the eye of a particular editor. As a result, they appear to all be on a "hit list". Plastikspork ―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  13:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, I responded to Peripitus on my talk page. I don't know if you have anything you want to add.  I will alert him/her to my response if he/she hasn't seen it already. Thanks yet again. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  14:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, there seems to be some ongoing tension between the uploader and the FFD nominator here. Had these images been uploaded by someone else, they quite possibly would have never been nominated. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 15:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Kids (film)

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

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

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

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

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


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

Wikis Take Manhattan
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  04:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for your opinion
Can you voice your opinion about a proposed merge? Thanks. -- Spidey 104 contribs 15:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

CSD help
does this article qualify for speedy deletion? Thanks A8  UDI  01:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Dallas
Hi Nightscream,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

Just letting you know that this RFC is now active due to having gotten three signatures within 48 hours. I'm sure you would have something to say. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's the significance of adding your signature. :) BOZ (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You should probably sign where I did, under "users endorsing"; I think saying you've tried and failed would be piling on at this point unless you really feel you want to be on the record with that. You might also want to write up an "Outside view by involved user Nightscream" with linked diffs and such. Daniel Case (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I locked the draft page for a reason - time to move on to the live page. ;) Hey, Merry Christmas! BOZ (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem; yep, the draft page was just a place to get our thoughts together, while the live RFC page was to be used for when things get started. You can just copy and paste anything you wrote to the main page, if that makes things easier. Go here, and at the bottom of that start a new subsection called "Involved view by Nightscream", and add whatever you feel best describes your feelings on the situation with Asgardian. Replies to other views go in a new section on the talk page. BOZ (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - at this point it's not so much of a "view"(point), as it is a list of examples. To make it a view (which other participants could more effectively endorse or argue against), it would likely be sufficient for you to add a sentence either before or after the list of examples stating something to the effect of "I feel the situation with Asgardian is BLAH and affects other editors as BLAH, as these examples will illustrate." Although it is not necessarily to do so, and you could just let what you have already done stand as-is. Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That'll work! Good idea. And then you might want to endorse your own view by signing it. BOZ (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Gauntlet Merge proposal
I proposed a merge a while back but only two people (besides me) have posted. Having a discussion of 2 against 1 doesn't seem like enough people to establish consensus. If you could please post your opinion here I would appreciate it. I want enough opinions so that I can either merge the articles or end the discussion so that the merge tags are no longer at the top of the articles. Thank you. -- Spidey 104 contribs 03:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies
Apologies for not joining the discussion you invited me to. Lots of real life messiness. I'm gonna try to pop around somewhat but, will be alot less frequent than before. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Asgardian
Um... you may want to go over the section you posted there and make sure your links either point to the section in your archives or to the actual dif. I just clicked on one and got your near empty talk page, not the evidence you wanted to show. - J Greb (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, certifying indicates that you have tried and failed to resolve the dispute, whereas endorsing the main summary states that you merely agree with it; no one should use both for the main summary. :)  BOZ (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The dispute" in this case being the whole thing described under the main summary, or any part of it (as far as I'm concerned). No problem on the understanding; you gotta learn sometime, and sometimes the best way to learn is to ask. :) BOZ (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, although I think the "tried to resolve the dispute" is a key part of certifying the debate (that is, I wouldn't think that someone should be certifying if they just fanned the flames and didn't try to put them out). BOZ (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Rational Response Squad
Hey, Nightscream. Thanks for contacting me regarding the page. Perhaps I was over hasty in deleting some of the intro; it's seem a bit like an advertisement so I paired it down. As for you other concerns, they seem a little off. I gave two sources in connection with "Brian Sapient": the first authenticated the claim that he was a co-founder of the RSS and the second provided his real name. As for "Rook Hawkins", his real name is now common knowledge, but I wanted to be thorough since I expected objections like this so I sourced it nevertheless. I checked the link you posted regarding reliable sources and I couldn't find the words "social," "networking," "MySpace," or "Facebook" anywhere. All I found was a statement that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves," which is exactly what the Facebook page I referenced was: a self-published source by the RSS on the RSS. Finally, given that Brian's real name is found in sources the article already was using, and that the RSS has itself publicized "Rook's" real name, I don't see how the preference for anonymity has any standing. I'm reverting the name info but I'll leave the "mission statement" this time. Eugeneacurry (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is some helpful information from the Society of Professional Journalists on the ethics that should be used in writing. This is not Wikipolicy, nor is it enforceable in any way, but it does provide the basic dos and don'ts that are accepted by media outlets worldwide, from newspapers to paper encyclopedias. Much of it is a condensed version of wikipolicy, and it has often provided me with some very good, plain old common-sense arguments. Hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: In media sections in city articles
Hmm. This is an interesting discussion. I agree that it would be a good idea to broaden exposure of this issue, probably at WT:WikiProject Cities. My search of that WikiProject's talk archives didn't really turn up anything, nor did my search of WikiProject New Jersey's talk archives – although to be fair it's possible I missed something. One interesting discussion I did find was at WP:Featured article candidates/San Francisco, California from back in 2006, where there was a dispute over the inclusion of a paragraph similar to your section, documenting "depictions of the city in media, books, etc." The issue was how to include such information without having an "in popular culture" section that would invited a deluge of pop-culture references and trivia. While it certainly is possible to include the text you support in the Union City, New Jersey article, I think it might be better if you integrated the notable "in media" parts into the rest of the article to avoid a trivia section that could trigger the aforementioned deluge. For example, the editors of San Francisco, California integrated the information into the "Economy" section of that article.

If you want broader consensus on this, I think WT:WikiProject Cities is the place to go – but if you just want to deal with this as it regards to the Union City article, I would be happy to help out with the dispute on the article's talk page. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I still favor WT:WikiProject Cities, but WT:NJ would be just fine with me too. It sounds like you'd prefer NJ, in which case by all means start the discussion there. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All right then. I started the thread there. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)