User talk:Nightscream/Archive 7




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

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


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

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

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

Hudson town representations
Hi Nightscream, I know we have been through all of this before, and I thought it was settled about the templates. However I have a major problem with your edits to the Bayonne article. Bayonne is represented by all three officials of the district, and your removal of the two representatives who happen to live in the Jersey City portion of the district has the appearance of racism. The people of Bayonne elected Cunningham and Mainor, and they belong in the Bayonne article. There is no "Bayonne" representative in the Assembly, there are two representatives of the entire 31st District. There is also one Senator who represents the district that Bayonne is part of. While I understand your objections to the inclusion of the entire Board of Freeholders in every town article, completeness requires that all of the representatives of the 31st District appear in the Bayonne article.  Jim Miller  See me 02:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, none is as good as all. And just listing the district is fine with me, although so very un-Hudson County.  Jim Miller  See me 03:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A more comprehensive discussion of this issue is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey/Hudson County Task Force and I hope we can reach a resolution that addresses Hudson County as part of all 21 counties statewide. Alansohn (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say this in the HCTF discussion, but felt it would be best handled directly. I am sorry Nightscream, but as an administrator, you should be completely aware that consensus can change. There is never any call for making a statement as you have made in the above noted discussion. I am aware of your position on this, and I still disagree, but you have no right to come into any conversation anywhere on WP and say "That's been decided." The discussion has been opened, and if you wish to participate in determining whether consensus is still the same as it was 16 months ago, please feel free to state your position, but do not attempt to stifle discussion that may not conform with your opinion.  Jim Miller  See me 19:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to imply that Alan was in any way "more right" than you. I merely wanted to say that it is probably time to revisit the decision, and your statements, along with your status as an admin, come across as opposing the entire idea that change is possible. Broad definitive statements like the ones you made ("We've already had this discussion" and "That's been decided") conflict with BRD and CCC. Alan did provide evidence in the fact that the templates are used in every other municipal article except those about the towns of Hudson County. Consider that 544 articles have included these templates all along, and 12 have not, when determining exactly what consensus may or may not be.  Jim Miller  See me 20:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Interesting reading. I'll be more specific. Can you be more specific about the criteria you are using for the three recent edits you made, and how they correspond to the current PUBLISHED version of the Weehawken article? 62.195.2.137 (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I understand concept edit-warting, and appears were engaging in it when you made three reverts (forget the timing, it's not important) without either clarifying them to the party whose edits they were (mine, 2x) or on the talk page. Since you not have responded to my inquire above, I will post my request asking you to specify you interpretation and application to the Weehawken article there. Djflem (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Ferrigno
Nice of you to inform me. Yes, reflist has certain features, but if an article uses without any other parameters, it isn't using those features, and is visually and functionally identical to ) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for sanction
Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your post on my discussion site
Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New 52
My edit was sourced as batgirl number vol 4 #1, as in that issue it says that she WAS paralyzed and mysteriously healed, thus there is no POV on it, nor is there POV on the fact Cain and Brown(the two characters Wheeler complained about suddenly being erased) might not have been erased. While my grammar may not be on point, don't accuse me of POV edits please, especially when the fact is the facts say differently. -71.202.72.88 (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Also I was simply pointing out the fact that he was wrong not arguing with source, thus changing how the portrayal of female characters in DC isn't as bad as he said it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.72.88 (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Revert re F1 race in Weehawken
Regarding this edit of the article for Weehawken, New Jersey, the proposed Formula One race for 2013 has received widespread coverage in previous days. While no source was provided, hundreds are available and could have been added. Why not just add a source or tag it as needing a source, rather than reverting material that could be easily sourced? Alansohn (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Experienced editors like us would never add something like this without a source; it's just not the way we work. An edit like this is typically the work of a good-faith newbie, adding valid factual non-controversial information to an article, but completely clueless about the fact that sources are required, let alone having any knowledge of how to add that reference. In cases like this one, I would also leave a note for the editor, but be more likely to add the source myself or tag as citation needed. I may not be able to convince you to change your mind in all cases, but non-controversial edits like the one made here are probably less bitey if the material is left in as is. I always appreciate your meticulous work on Hudson County articles in terms of editing and sourcing, and hope that my comments here are perceived as food for thought rather than criticism, as there is no clear right or wrong way to deal with such cases. Alansohn (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebecca Guay
Hey guy, I was wondering if you wanted to add one of your new pics to the article for Rebecca Guay? I know you have pics for a bunch of artists (was also noticing you working on Steve Ellis earlier today) so you might be working on getting pics up over time, but I figured I would ask. :) BOZ (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! No, it's just that I noticed you uploading a new pic to a page I was watching (Dennis Calero?) and decided to browse your gallery to see if there was anyone I was particularly interested in.  If you were still uploading at the time, I'll take another look and see.  :)  BOZ (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing tests
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEditor2205&action=historysubmit&diff=459549101&oldid=458950915 Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, even if you intend to fix them later, as you did with your edits to Mariska Hargitay here and here. Such edits are considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)]

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

Image question
Hey Nightscream. I'm wondering why you didn't upload your to the ? — Mike  Allen   22:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm I was not aware of that! That's good to know. Thanks. — Mike   Allen   03:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Here is the current information:


 * On June 10, 2011, Dreyfuss was made a Master Mason "at sight" by the Grand Master of Masons of the District of Columbia at the Washington DC Scottish Rite building, as well as a 32nd Degree Scottish Rite Mason and is a member of the Valley of the District of Columbia, Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite (end quote).


 * I was present at the ceremony. Richard Dreyfuss was not made a mason 'at sight'. Therefore, this posting is in error.


 * I would like to add, that he was made a member of Potomac Lodge#5, F&AM, Grand Lodge of Washington DC.


 * I do not know how to get the documentation, I have contacted the secretary at Potomac lodge. Cemab4y (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I add a little more on Identiy Crisis
Feel free to make more edits.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP problems
Upon review of the contentious content you restored in this edit, the source actually makes no reference to Melissa Padrón's occupation. I have removed it again as a BLP violation. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In light of Ponyo's edit, I ask you to reconsider your block of the IP that, it turns out, was correctly removing a BLP problem. Risker (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. The IP may have gone about it the wrong way, but the removal is legitimate and certainly any concerns regarding "protecting Wikipedia" that led to the block are now moot. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 01:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


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


 * I have unblocked the IP and apologised to the real live human who was using it. Nightscream, you should consider yourself lucky that I haven't imposed the rest of the block time on you. This is not some politician on a cover-up mission. You do not put that kind of information into any article about a living person, sourced to something as flimsy as MTV, you definitely do not edit war to put it back in the article, and you absolutely do not block the poor soul who is trying to remove it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(moved from Elen of the Roads talkpage to keep the discussion together) If the anonymous IP editor was indeed the cast member of that show in person, then they should've contacted me, or anyone on Wikipedia to address this matter in an open, transparent manner. By instead removing the material which was sourced to the very network on which that show aired, and making no attempt to respond my messages on the IP's talk page, that person left me with little choice; I acted in good faith, and my actions were completely legitimate. Many times when photographing public events for WP and the Commons, I have happily aided BLP subjects who have requested my help in addressing problems with their articles. This includes contacting Community Liaison Maggie Dennis, and Jimmy Wales himself, most recent regarding the Toure matter, for example. But if the person removes sourced material from an IP account and makes no efforts to respond to my messages, my hands are tied. In your view, I should just assume that when an IP editor removes sourced content, that oh, I should assume that it's the actual subject, which is silly. Equally silly is your position that MTV is "flimsy", when the article in question is about a show on MTV, and the source is the bio pages about cast members on their website. So spare me your unwarranted threats. Nightscream (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you learn to use your own tools (rather than acting like one, which is what you are doing at the moment). The first IP locates to Pittsburgh, the second to New York, suggesting that the editor might have some difficulty going back to the first IP when you blocked the second with account creation disabled. Since you obviously don't know, let me explain that when you check that box, it stops anyone creating an account from that IP. Secondly, you do realise that IP editors don't have the luxury of watchlists, or the new message icon. The editor hadn't realised she had a talkpage to respond to you on. Thirdly, I would always give the benefit of the doubt and leave that kind of information out of a BLP for any number of reasons - the sourcing wasn't good enough, it was WP:UNDUE and another editor (in fact, four other editors, including two Arbitrators in the end up) disagreed with keeping it in the article.Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As a disinterested party, albeit one who views Nightscream as a responsible and meticulous editor, I think it's necessary to point out that I'm surprised to hear anyone say that the MTV website itself is not "good enough" sourcing for an article about an MTV program. Also, I'm not sure it's wise, as policy, to assume anyone is who they say they are; Wikipedia has gotten burned by hoaxes before, as have Twitter and Facebook, where someone claims to be a celebrity or even simply another person; Twitter had to begin its "verification" process to combat that. I can't speak for anything else in this exchange; I thought it important to make these two points about larger overall policy and assumptions, and I'm sure, judging from your own articulate concerns and experience, that you understand and appreciate why I note these two points. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I happened to be strolling by, and only want to point out one thing, which I can confirm as a regular IP editor. Yes, we do get notices when someone posts on our talk page, which I assume is identical to what editors with accounts get. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Justice League #3
I just wanted to say thank you. That was very sweet of you. Dave (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, since you are the comics industry professional that I have had the most recent direct contact with; the strangely blown up situation surrounding me; that I have thus far actually found you honourable, sensible, and trustworthy; and that I think that several of the people involved want thorough responses from me, but without any fuzz.
 * However, I don't know the best manner to do that, or even if it is possible, and have very low ability to lie/filter direct communication, so it would probably be best if I gave full responses in private. So, do you have an email address that I can correspond with you through?  You can contact me through vizierz2002@yahoo.com Dave (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Could use some extra eyes on something...
If you get a chance could you take a look at Chemo, ites edit history, and this editors contribution history.

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

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

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

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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


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

Tami Akbar/Anderson/Roman
Okay, I'm confused. I thought I was making a simple connection between Real World: Los Angeles and Basketball Wives, since Tami is the common link between the two, and her participation in Real World LA is noted in the Basketball Wives article without sourcing/references, and I thought it appropriate to cross-reference the mention in the first article, since it's specifically pointed up in the second. Two shows, sister networks, MTV Networks umbrella, what have you. It would follow somehow that if mentioning her participation in the second show in the article about the first one is inappropriate without supporting references, that mentioning the first show in the article about the second show would be equally inappropriate, but I may be misunderstanding things in their entirety. Absurdist1968 (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that; I suspected as much. I am still a little bit unclear on how to correctly use episodic television (as well as, for example, DVDs of TV/movies) as primary sourcing, but I think I can muddle through until I stumble onto the appropriate WP articles in my regular browsing. :) Absurdist1968 (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


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


 * Steven Hirsch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link to TMZ

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

No mention on the talk page?
So you haven't mentioned on the Talk:Kristanna Loken page why the sources aren't accepted? The high amount of edit war will be ongoing if you don't. --ConCelFan (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not threatening. I just compared the page's history (which no one is reading as obvious from its length) and talk page (which people read and see no mention). So this is just a WP:AGF advice. --ConCelFan (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the page's history of 2011 is filled with reversions relating to DOB. I don't know if reversions before that are too. So what can be seen is definitely an edit war. --ConCelFan (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Likely with revision 436178762 of 25 June 2011, and onwards. DOB was first switched to December then back to October then back to December then back to October, then removed, then keeps reappearing as October and December. --ConCelFan (talk) 08:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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


 * Hi, Night. D'oh. You're right; it's an essay. I meant to link to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (You can see how easy it is to confuse the two shortcuts!).


 * What's your take on my comment about bibliographic convention? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, N. Working on a response, but I have to do a quick work thing for a couple minutes. Back shortly. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm back. You reasonably mention you're in favor of including reprint collections, in addition to the original works, "for reasons I mentioned above." In response, and certainly with great respect for the major and important work you do here, I've been taking the time to look at them one by one and give full and specific attention to each.


 * "It seems to be a very reasonable bit of information." That's not really an argument, per se, but a tautology. The very thing we discussing is whether it's reasonable to include this information, and this sentence is essentially saying that "the reason that it's reasonable to include it is because it's reasonable to include."


 * "It also may be an indicator of notability, vis a vis the creators' success, since works are generally only collected when the original work is successful." Isn't Kirkman notable even without listing the reprint editions? Does not having them listed mean Kirkman is no longer notable enough to have an article?


 * "It may also help WP:V, since collections may be the primary work sold at vendors like Amazon, where the individual works collected are usually indicated." At Amazon and other online booksellers, well, yes, that's the primary way they're sold. But we're not here to help Amazon and other booksellers sell these collections, which is my primary point. Are the original comics' existence not verifiable through the Grand Comics Database, or through reviews, or through industry articles and press releases?


 * What do you think, N? Are my comments reasonable and fair responses to the points and concerns you specified? And what are your thoughts on my point about bibliographic convention?--Tenebrae (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I follow the argument about not including additional material once notability has been determined. It's the original comics that make him notable and we add to what makes him notable. The reprints aren't what makes him notable. I just don't think our purview is to be a catalog of every repackaged versions of the original works. Because it's the original works themselves that are critical and important.


 * And with all due respect, Night, I've answered your points and questions but you haven't answered the one I had about bibliographic convention.


 * I'd like to hear your thoughts on that, but that aside, do you think we're at loggerheads? Would it help to get other editors' views? This seems like a potentially far-reaching issue, so maybe we're not the only two in the Project who have an opinion on this. What do you say? You want to work together to craft an RfC (since it might be easier to do that if we split the work)? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Okey-doke. Sometime tomorrow let's do this . . . I've actually just finished a 12-hour workday, believe it or not.


 * My fault for not being clearer &mdash; I wasn't referring to Wikipedia articles when I mentioned authors and bibliographies. I meant bibliographies in general. Honestly, I would estimate that 99% of the Daniel Keyes biographies online and in print don't list every single book in which "Flowers for Algernon" appeared.


 * On the flip side, I think you might have misconstrued my point about adding new original material after notability is established. When an actor's new movie comes out, we add it to his filmography. But I wouldn't add every VHS, Beta, DVD, Blu-Ray etc. version of every one of his films to his filmography. By that same token, I wouldn't add reprints to a comics creator's bibliography.


 * So tomorrow then, my comics compadre! With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Happened to notice this exchange, and wanted to chime in. I think I agree with both of you - but we're talking about two different ideas. One is a list of all of the works by an author, the other is the list of all publications of works by an author. I think both are useful things, but they need to be distinguished, and articles and terminology should somehow be explicit as to which one(s) it contains... PermanentVacay (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is good &mdash; shows there's interest in this topic. Nightscream and I are arranging an RfC, so we'll notify you when it's up.


 * Night: How is this for a first draft of the RfC language? "Discussion as to whether the bibliography in a comics creators' article should list only the original comics or also list every reprint collection containing those comics." --Tenebrae (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I ask a question here? Why does it have to be "or"? Both of these kinds of lists are very useful, just for different purposes. I think both should be allowed, and they should be clearly distinguished from each other. For instance List of short stories by Harry Harrison presents both pieces of information together. PermanentVacay (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Although it's true, you should just throw up the RfC and we should discuss it there! PermanentVacay (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, Tenebrae. Nightscream (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone could let me know when this happens, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! PermanentVacay (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Unreferenced/uncited edits: Please assist or advise
Many recent edits have been made by Searcher 1990 (talk | contribs), all without any references or citations. I have reverted many of the edits between the dates of 17 December 2011 – 20 December 2011, but there are quite a few more edits made previous my revision corrections, for which I imagine are also unreferenced &/or uncited. Upon further review of the edit history of Searcher 1990, it appears they continue to conduct a patter of behavior that is be disruptive & not in accordance with Wikipedia's manual of style (even after a history of punishment). Please assist with preventing such edits from continuing. Bullmoosebell (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your assistance. Bullmoosebell (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * and please sign your block notices! If you use the Twinkle notifier, it already does it ... if you do them manually, it's usually just a matter of adding  |sig=yes  inside the template (talk→   BWilkins  ←track ) 17:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I researched recent contributions by Searcher 1990 (talk | contribs) to find this editor is continuing their practice of making edits without references or citations. Bullmoosebell (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention by Donner60 that Searcher 1990 is continuing to edit in the same fashion as previous to their blocking, only they are not logging in and editing through IP address 84.193.82.180 (talk | contribs). Bullmoosebell (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, said user is making edits, similar in style and on the same pages, as they've previously made. Bullmoosebell (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Tis the season
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

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

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

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

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


 * I happened upon this by pure chance. The edits that I have placed on the pages noted by Bullmoose are from a highly reliable source Eicher, John H., and David J. Eicher, Civil War High Commands. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. ISBN 0-8047-3641-3, which is a reference book used by several editors of Civil War articles. I am reasonably sure one or two experienced editors will back me up on this. I did not write those articles and did not contribute most of what is in them. Almost every sentence that I placed in the articles, and in some cases even phrases, are footnoted with the page from Eicher or occasionally another source. I am 100% convinced the edits are accurate as well as being reliably sourced. Is Bullmoose in effect implying that every citation must be found in an internet source. I have well over 2,000 edits for a period of 17 months. I have created 36 new pages. I am an autopatrolled user, not because I requested it, but because another editor requested it and an administrator granted it. I'd like to know in what sense these edits based on a highly reliable source are either vague, ambiguous or highly debatable. I don't claim that every sentence I write may be crystal clear and some may require a little editing. That is a far cry from stating they are wrong. Here is the google book URL for Civil War High Commands: http://books.google.com/books?id=Fs0Ajlnjl6AC. As a new book, the pages on Hill or Mussey may or may not be available on line. Donner60 (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I might add that the web page for the American University College of Law cited by Bullmoose reads in part: "Because Mussey had not become a member of the Washington bar during the 16 years that she had worked in her husband's law practice, upon his death she was required to become a member in order to maintain the law practice." That does not differ from the edit I made about Reuben's death and Ellen's continuation of the practice. Donner60 (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is the description of Civil War High Commands from the google book page. I would put this reference up against a web page biography for the very reasons stated in this description: Based on nearly five decades of research, this magisterial work is a biographical register and analysis of the people who most directly influenced the course of the Civil War, its high commanders. Numbering 3,396, they include the presidents and their cabinet members, state governors, general officers of the Union and Confederate armies (regular, provisional, volunteers, and militia), and admirals and commodores of the two navies. Civil War High Commands will become a cornerstone reference work on these personalities and the meaning of their commands, and on the Civil War itself.


 * Errors of fact and interpretation concerning the high commanders are legion in the Civil War literature, in reference works as well as in narrative accounts. The present work brings together for the first time in one volume the most reliable facts available, drawn from more than 1,000 sources and including the most recent research. The biographical entries include complete names, birthplaces, important relatives, education, vocations, publications, military grades, wartime assignments, wounds, captures, exchanges, paroles, honors, and place of death and interment.


 * In addition to its main component, the biographies, the volume also includes a number of essays, tables, and synopses designed to clarify previously obscure matters such as the definition of grades and ranks; the difference between commissions in regular, provisional, volunteer, and militia services; the chronology of military laws and executive decisions before, during, and after the war; and the geographical breakdown of command structures. The book is illustrated with 84 new diagrams of all the insignias used throughout the war and with 129 portraits of the most important high commanders. Donner60 (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Bullmoosebell and I have had some correspondence and I don't think we are far apart. He rightly pointed out that my mention of Wikipedia lists of generals was vague because it was not specific enough and there are many such lists. The underlying sources are the better references. (I cited the lists only in the edit summary, not in the article, which would have been contrary to guidelines against citing Wikipedia's own articles.) I also acknowledge that a good edit history does not mean that every edit is a good one or that a citation may be incorrect or vague or missing. I think I wrongly supposed that a more general challenge to my edit history was being made. (I think Bullmoosebell may have intended to refer to edits to John F. Weston rather than Sylvester Hill but I will review them both as soon as I can get back to them after a night's sleep.) Donner60 (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

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


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

Updates to North Bergen, New Jersey
I made a whole series of updates to the article for North Bergen, New Jersey, mostly in the context of adding data from the 2010 Census on population and area. While I was in the article, I also added and updated sources and tweaked some of the wording. I don't doubt that you will review the changes on your own, but I wanted to give you a heads up, especially as there were a lot of changes made to the article and I know how closely you monitor this article and other Hudson County articles. If I made any mistakes in wording or formatting, please excuse my errors in advance and feel free to contact me to discuss any of the changes I had made to the article. Thanks again for all of your painstaking work updating and expanding the articles in the Hudson County area. Alansohn (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I took a whack at Secaucus, New Jersey, as well as some other Hudson County municipalities as they crop up. The area and census data changes are pretty comprehensive, so I try to include a decent review of other material in the articles as I go through them, adding or updating sources as appropriate. Again, give me a shout if there are any questions about my edits. Alansohn (talk) 04:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Protection templates
Just letting you know that you no longer have to add protection templates when you protect a page - a bot automatically does this. → <font color="#BA0000">Σ τ  c. 23:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Adam Hughes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phil Hester (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Anyways, I'm in the process of adding in the citations now (which will be sporadic—I pop open the laptop whenever the baby manages to fall asleep for a couple of minutes).  C üRly T üRkey  <sup style="margin-left:1.5ex;">Talk <sub style="margin-left:-5ex;">Contribs 02:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I may be finished adding the necessary cites, but I may have missed one or two.  C üRly T üRkey  <sup style="margin-left:1.5ex;">Talk <sub style="margin-left:-5ex;">Contribs 13:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To be fair, I didn't just say that you should have added the citations. I said you could have, or you you have informed me so that I could have done it myself, rather than just removing what I added.  If you look at my own history, you'll see that I have myself gone through a lot of effort to track down and source articles, as well.  I certainly wasn't trying to imply that you haven't, and I definitely wasn't trying to be offensive—apologies if it came off that way.  I was only trying to say that it's frustrating to see material removed when it's obvious that, even if it's not sourced yet, it could be easily sourced: in the case of an award, rather than just some random claim (e.g. if someone had just claimed Jeff Smith had recently come out of the closet).  If it seems unlikely to be untrue, then is it really a priority to have it removed so quickly?


 * Please don't take this as an invitation to an argument. I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm only trying to find a way for things to be easier on us all.  Happy Holidays.   C üRly T üRkey  <sup style="margin-left:1.5ex;">Talk <sub style="margin-left:-5ex;">Contribs 22:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess it comes down to which you believe is worse: hastily adding information without citations, or hastily removing material that may have been cited already. Myself, I tend to leave uncited material in unless it seems dubious or potentially libelous.   C üRly T üRkey  <sup style="margin-left:1.5ex;">Talk <sub style="margin-left:-5ex;">Contribs 22:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I spend a lot of time adding citations to articles. I do understand its importance, and I cite a lot of things even when I think they are unlikely to be challenged.  In fact, I think that "Christmas falls on December 25th" should be cited, if for no other reason than that, if it's so obvious, it should be easy to find a reference.  What I was saying was not that the awards should be left uncited, but that awards should be easy to track down a citation for (the Eisners, Ignatz, Harveys, Doug Wrights, Joe Shusters, etc, get pretty widely reported, as well as maintaining the information on their websites).  When it's something for which it's pretty easy to track down and verify a source, I don't see the benefit in removing the information entirely, even if it's not cited at the moment.  One benefit from adding the categories is that it lets people track down related pages so they can fix them up in groups.  I've been doing this recently with a lot of Canadian comics-related articles.  By following the links from the categories, I can go through articles in a sort-of orderly way and fix things up.  Without the categories, it would take a lot more effort on my part just to hunt down the right articles to fix up in the first place (assuming I even knew about them at all)—time better spent editing.  Editing and tracking down sources is time-consuming as it is, as you've pointed out yourself.   C üRly T üRkey  <sup style="margin-left:1.5ex;">Talk <sub style="margin-left:-5ex;">Contribs 04:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)