User talk:Nightspore

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ...Scott5114 04:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Burton Dreben
Hi there. I noticed you're the one who initially wrote the article about Burton Dreben. In the course of a mediation case, I came across the article and did a little cleanup, but I see that it has no references listed. I know you wrote it a while ago, but if you could provide the references you used, that would be very helpful. (If you could cite the two specific statements I flagged, even better.) Shimeru 00:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ice Storm
Sorry - I must not have been paying attention - I actually thought it was removed and I was restoring it. I must have crossed my edit windows. --DavidShankBone 23:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ashbery
I do not believe Silliman's comments constitute an 'essay' - they are to me blog ramblings. Is that too conservative? This isn't so much a matter of principle (i.e. linking to a blog), I suppose, more a beef with the content and style of the posts - so symptomatic of Silliman and his apparent inability to slow his own verbal onslaught. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funktrane (talk • contribs) 05:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I don't think the first entry relates enough to Ashbery to include. Also, just curious, not doubting, but when/where did Ashbery acknowledge Silliman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funktrane (talk • contribs) 06:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Deborah Gordon.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Deborah Gordon.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Lexulous editing
All fair points, but you don't seem to have actually said this directly to the editor - if they don't know enough about Wikipedia to check the page history or the article talk page, all they'll see is their edit mysteriously and repeatedly disappearing, with no reason not to add it back. I've left them a uw-nor warning on their talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but this is a random IP user - if they don't know how Wikipedia works, they won't think to check the page history to see why their edit was reverted, they'll just shrug and add it back. --McGeddon (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * IP users get the same "You have new messages (last change)" orange box as everyone else, whenever anyone edits their talk page - it stays there until they click through and read the message. --McGeddon (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nightspore, I don't wish to butt heads with you and respect your experience, and am new to this myself. I am writing you because I would like to work with you on the literary dog entry, as a result of your edits of the literary dogs page. Your first edit changed the name of dog book from "Inca Dink, The Great Houndini" (which is the book's correct name) to "Inca Dink, The Great Houdini" (you removed the 'N' from Houndini); then when I corrected by replacing the "N" (and at the same time attributed the work (and this IS a published book by third party publisher), you then elected to remove the entry altogether. I don't know why the other books are allowed to have their author listed and not this one.  This is factual, and I very much ask that you let both the book stay (with its correct name), and all authors of these works shoud be treated alike.  Can we work this out so there is no more back and forth?   Thank you in advance. Artmaestro (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

William Blake
Great. But don't just revert my edit, add the citation to an appropriate place in the article. Yworo (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Brandeis University
"Everything there is verifiable"--maybe so. Then verify it. But after you verify that Jack Abramoff wore a Brandeis hat in a movie, or that a character in a novel attends Brandeis, be prepared to see it removed again as an utterly trivial mention. Please don't bloat encyclopedic articles with non-notable tidbits. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ElKevbo (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * You said, twice already, "repeat: the citations ARE the works listed. This is subject-specific common knowledge". Not here. "The citations are the works listed" means you are using primary sources, and encyclopedias are secondary sources. Look it up: WP:SECONDARY. Moreover, the examples are still utterly trivial. Do not confuse an encyclopedia with a vat full of trivial nonsense. Finally, there is no vote. What I do note is that there are two editors who have removed that stuff, and you're the only one putting it back. Now, you have reverted so often that you're guilty of edit-warring and you can be blocked for that. I propose that you don't stick that stuff back in there. If you do, and if you are unwilling to listen to the arguments that the other editor and I have brought up, you might find yourself blocked. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You've been reported at WP:AN3. It seems you have broken the three-revert rule. If you will promise to stop reverting on this issue, there may still be time to avoid sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Signature method
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously?
You're going to undo all my revisions? 99% of everything on that list is unreferenced, non-notable crap. Ncboy2010 (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I was only trying to help.. It's ok. Ncboy2010 (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup at List of fictional dogs
Per your concerns at list of fictional dogs, I have responded in detail. I have outlined why the current model for the article is unworkable and I have laid out what I believe are common sense and workable solutions to the problems I identified. You have repeatedly brought up the fact that this list was brought before RfD and that it survived the challenge. The fact that it was nominated for deletion should indicate to you that it is not a healthy article. In attempting to perform a major cleanup of the article neither Ncboy2010 nor I are trying to vandalize the article nor are we trying to slyly delete the article. Such accusations are unfounded and inappropriate and I urge you to refactor. My main goal in all of this is to prevent the article from going before RfD again. That will require some potentially painful cuts to the article. Some of your favorite characters may get the chop. This is done in the interest of the article as a whole, though. I'd really like your help in making a smooth and useful cleanup because the article as it stands is woefully below Wikipedia's standards. I hope I can count on your help. -Thibbs (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, You win
I was actually trying to revert the edits, to put back the literature dogs. I respect your ownership of this article and admit defeat. I only ask that you let the "Main Article" headers stay, and the navigation template. Deal? Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to your statement that I was backdoor-deleting the article by leaving only 3: My original intention was to pare it down to the 3 most well known, with the tag above that said "Main Article." that had the rest. I'm sorry if there was an issue with that, and as I said. I'm not going to bother your article anymore... Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm also sorry for referring to everything as "crap." A lot of the things probably could be removed, but I'd like to let it lie as it is. I didn't mean to make you mad, or start an edit war (although I don't think we've actually hit the 3 reverts of the same data yet). Truce. Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply
I'm not sure how to revert it back... Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok that sounds like a plan.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a question
I understand that you're protective of the literature section, but what about the others, like comics and animation? Do you mind if I replace the comics section with what's here: List of fictional dogs in comics. (Albeit with a shorter list of dogs and probably only one picture)Ncboy2010 (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So you only really care that everything under literature stay under literature? Ncboy2010 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies
I must apologize if you feel that I am lecturing you on Wikipolicy. I can see that you've been here a long time. Longer than I, in fact. Please don't look on my comments as tutorials but rather as the explicit bases for my arguments. There is a great temptation in helping to construct a list like "List of fictional dogs" to populate it with all of one's favorite characters from novels and films that one has enjoyed in the past and I fully recognize that cutting these out in a cleanup may feel like it is the action of a unreasoning iconoclast. I have taken part in cleaning up several articles like this one and I have run into difficulties in applying a consistent standard to the members of the list. My references to Wikipolicy are intended to drive the conversation toward a logical conclusion rather than one based on emotion and sentimentality. I find that divorcing myself from such feelings is really the only way to perform a cleanup like this without compromising with myself in a non-NPOV manner on certain list members that I recall fondly. I hope you understand. -Thibbs (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfinished discussions
If possible I'd like to wrap up the discussion at "list of fictional dogs". A compromise has been presented by Ncboy2010 that I don't think is ideal but that I am willing to run with for now. This compromise would enable the limits you favor to be applied to the list of fictional dogs in literature which you have stated is your primary area of interest. Briefly this would allow a LSC#2-style list with selection criteria as follows: I still worry that this is unmanageable and contrary to best practices here at Wikipedia but it will definitely help to contain what I see as the problem at "list of fictional dogs". We've asked for your opinion on this compromise at talk. When you get a moment please weigh in. -Thibbs (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * List of fictional dogs in literature
 * Restricted to literature of notable authors
 * Mostly consisting of non-notable characters that mostly have names


 * Perhaps I've over-explained the compromise now in my effort to make it clear. Sorry for the "novel" I've left at talk. Anyway let me know what you think. -Thibbs (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope you've had a pleasant holiday season and New Year. I'd like to try to bring the discussion we were engaged in last month to a close if possible. So when you have a free moment, please comment on the compromise that Ncboy2010 suggested in talk at "list of fictional dogs". I understand that some people have longer vacation periods than others so I wouldn't mind waiting for a short time, but if you can't participate in these discussions right now then please provide me with a firm date after which you will be ready to engage in conversation again. -Thibbs (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As I've already said, I'm done interacting with you. I don't even know why I'm bothering to answer you, but this is it: You and Ncboy2010 can do what you want to the list as far as I'm concerned: it's clear that I am powerless (and certainly don't have the time) to keep at this.  I think your views are wrong and contrary to the spirit of WP; none of the policies you adduce are particularly relevant; you argue by way of non-sequitur and genial insult, and the result is that you're going to destroy an appealing, well-defined, intuitively obvious list, built up over many years.  It's sad, but there are sadder things and I'm done. Nightspore (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if you think I've somehow slighted you. That was never my intent. I am only interested in bringing this brace of articles into conformity with the rest of Wikipedia. Like most of these lists, the list of fictional dogs has also been nominated for deletion due to its condition. It survived the RfD but only by administrative intervention as the consensus of the editors was clearly in favor of deletion. That was in 2007. This is 5 years later and Wikipedia has only become stricter in its deletion policies. Having spent a great deal of time with these articles I have come to conclude that they are beneficial to Wikipedia, but only if they conform strictly to the baseline policies of WP:N and WP:V. Clearly your views are different.

I believe the root of this problem falls on a fundamental conflict between WP:SAL which clearly states that "Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; so are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as notability guidelines ." and the implication in WP:LSC that "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria." is a common selection criterion. LSC is a subsection of SAL so it's hard to imagine what the crafters of this policy were thinking.

At any rate, despite our opposed views we remain peers and it is not my wish to impose my will on you through power, time, non-sequitur, insult, or any other such anti-collaborative means. As you are an old hand at this by now, I am sure you are aware that there are a variety of dispute resolution tools (3O, RfC, or even Mediation) at our disposal that would allow commentary by neutral third parties. I would agree that we have reached a total impasse in our discussions and I would be glad to gain an outside perspective if you'd agree.

In the interest of respecting your isolationism I won't post messages to you on your talk page after this unless you ask me to or unless I feel it absolutely necessary, but I'll assume you've read this and I'll interpret your silence as an unwillingness to reach a bilateral solution. I may pursue a unilateral dispute resolution channel (like RfC) if I feel up to it and I will definitely pursue what I see as the fundamental conflict in SAL that is the root of all of this. Again, I'm sorry you've taken this matter so poorly and I can assure you that I have the best intentions for the article you care so deeply about. If this is our last exchange then I wish you well in future editing. -Thibbs (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bother you. I've filed an RfC (here) in which I summarize your positions regarding our disagrement. I understand that you are finished with the discussion but please feel free to make changes if you think I've misrepresented your positions. I'll assume that you're watching the proceedings. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Uhm..
I don't really understand what the big deal is, to be honest. You act as if someone might actually miss unnamed dog that did something in some story few people have read and fewer still care about. You keep saying that "Non-notable dog + notable fiction = Notability" that's not true and a ridiculous notion. Just because an author or even a book is notable does not mean that the dog in the fiction is necessarily notable. You think I'm just wholesale deleting everything and that I've got some kind of personal agenda. You see, Wikipedia is based on consensus. Apparently Thibbs and Salvidrim, while they may not agree with 100% of everything I've done, actually think that I've at least moved in a better direction. So who do you have that's arguing in your favor? the 80 some odd % of IP users that created and worked on these lists for years? On a side note, you're supposed to sign your comments with four ~'s. Ncboy2010 (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your side note. That's the kind of thing that you're good at: hammering legalisms while saying that I 'keep saying '"Non-notable dog + notable fiction = Notability'. Nope, I do not recall saying that, and your quotation marks are, to indulge in your legalism but without the inaccuracy, as grossly misleading as your paraphrase is subtly prejudicial.  Also where do I say what you put in quotation marks: "The dog in the fiction is necessarily notable"?  What I say, and have backed up numerous times by citing policy, is that the subject of the list as a whole has to be notable, not that every entry in it does.  In the spirit of compromise, I proposed the idea of named dogs in fiction by notables.  But that did not satisfy your destructive urges.
 * Moreover, two people are not consensus, an article you should read. (Then you can edit that too to bring it into conformity with your ideas of what it should be.)  Worse is the fact that you seem to think it your duty to be some marshall of the Wikipedian plains, searching for any articles beginning "List of fictional...." and picking off as many fictional entrants as you can, and sometimes the whole list.  Obviously what leads you to these lists is not an interest in their subjects but an interest in your own power as an editor imagining himself among the lonely western good guys, setting entries to right and then riding off into the sunset to destroy some other entry.
 * As for your view that you somehow represent what you call "consensus," is appears that you were sufficiently upset by your reception all over that you had to go off and calm down for a while. I suggest that the anger you provoke should make you consider the idea that you're not on the side of consensus.  You belong to the Tea Party of Wikipedia here, the moralists angry enough to go against what the majority wants but doesn't care enough about to fight for in individual instances.  You get congratulated by others and confirmed in your anti-social or deutero-social activities.  And yeah, Salvidrim explicitly disowned your implication, saying: "I'm not expressing a judgement on the quality of the work itself, but merely at the dedication and amount of work accomplished."  As of course you know. Yours in the ranks of tildes, Nightspore (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ok, firstly, I'm sorry for being rude. I'm sorry I messed with the articles and you're completely right. I've taken the compliments of two people to heart and I should have listened a bit more closely. Obviously, I fucked up and I am sorry. I thought I was helping but I guess I wasn't. Anyway... I'll revert the redirect, and AfD the list of fictional canines... Ncboy2010 (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There, the List of fictional dogs article is exactly as it was before I touched it.... Ncboy2010 (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll leave the list of canines alone, but I promise I won't touch the List of fictional dogs without first agreeing to terms that you and I and an actual consensus can agree upon. The article had existed for quite some time before I came along, and I don't see the harm in it staying like it is now. What do you say, Nightspore? I just want to stop this fighting and start with a blank page. Ncboy2010 (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That, I think, might actually work out... I suppose we could just move the article List of fictional dogs to List of dogs in fiction and then you could remove whatever you like. I've already got everything I need for List of fictional canines and dogs in fiction is different enough to be it's own stand-alone article. (for some reason I don't expect TV or mascots to be on an X in fiction article). I can accept this and, assuming it works out I'm very happy to say I think we've got our solution! I'll leave a message for Thibbs. Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Pynchon
thanks for the fix, I should have checked around more before making the edit. I didn't know De Chirico had a novel. (Do you know anything about it?) Thanks again, Sindinero (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Deborah Gordon.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Deborah Gordon.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 04:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Kathy Acker
Kathy Acker is being put in by century sub-cats of Category:American novelists. This is being done to every last American novelits, without regard to gender, race, ethnicity, or writing very specific genres. There is no reason to not do so for Acker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Apology and request
Hello Nightspore. We got off to a very poor start and I can understand that you might still be unfavorably disposed to my views, but I wanted to let you know that I've been forced to loosen my hardline approach to lists. While I still think that generally the Common List Selection Criteria should define most lists, I've had to accept that there are others in the community who find that the guidelines stand in the way of providing interesting content and that if properly handled, some non-guideline lists can be an asset. In coming to terms with this, I realize that your vision at "list of fictional dogs" was not quite as heretical as it seemed to me at the time. As you rightly argued, we're simply in different philosophical camps on the issue. And it bothers me to think that you've now left the article because of my dogmatic approach. That was never my intent. I've since given up on trying to clean up the fictional animal list articles because they seem to do little but generate bad blood and I'm not interested in making enemies even if I think my interpretation of the rules is correct. At this point I wish I'd never tried to clean up the dogs article and that you were still providing the much-needed stewardship for it. If you are interested I would be open to the idea of working to restore the article in part using alternative inclusion criteria like you had suggested.

Anyway I hope you can accept my apology for being overly zealous and dogmatic in the past and I was also hoping to invite you to participate in an article I'm currently writing for the WikiProject:Video Games newsletter. I'm looking for editors who belong to the "other" philosophical camp to offer some brief thoughts on Wikipedia's lists. My article will not be styled as an argument against either camp, but rather it will cover all views as important flavors in the community. The newsletter isn't due to come out until October 3 so there is a fair bit of time for you to decide if you're unsure. If you are interested then I'd be asking you to write a paragraph or two on the idea that inclusive lists are one of the things that set Wikipedia apart (in a good way) from traditional encyclopedias. You can see a draft of the article and where your contributions would be needed at User:Thibbs/Sandbox7 (just text search your username). Please let me know if you'd be willing to contribute to the newsletter. -Thibbs (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to update you on this, I did end up using an old quote of yours because I thought you expressed yourself well. I modified it slightly so that it applied to lists in general instead of just the single list and also I pulled together a few sentences from different parts of the discussion. You can see the final version here. I did my best to have it match your original position and I hope this effort was successful in your view. Anyway I just wanted to reiterate what I said above. If you have any interest in working together on the fictional dog article again then I'd be glad to help under my new non-hardline perspective. Either way sorry and thanks again. -Thibbs (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)