Jump to content

User talk:Nightscream/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Midtown Comics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Back issue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

File:9.5.07AMCGardenStatePlazaMallbyLuigiNovi.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:9.5.07AMCGardenStatePlazaMallbyLuigiNovi.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"Aman Sul" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Aman Sul. Since you had some involvement with the Aman Sul redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"Ameircan Health Care act" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ameircan Health Care act. Since you had some involvement with the Ameircan Health Care act redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 16:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

File:KravenTheHunterByJohnRomitaSr.gif listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:KravenTheHunterByJohnRomitaSr.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

File:DisneyUltimateMilesMorales.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DisneyUltimateMilesMorales.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

File:IronManV5-32page6.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IronManV5-32page6.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

File:DetroitSteelJapan.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DetroitSteelJapan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Rogue2CoverByMikeWieringo.jpg.gif listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rogue2CoverByMikeWieringo.jpg.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

File:OldManLogan.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:OldManLogan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

File:FlashThompsonAmazingFantasyV1No15.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FlashThompsonAmazingFantasyV1No15.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited China Soul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BMI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Ref names

How were you doing this? I have been aching for something that will give me meaningful ref names! —valereee (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I did it manually. I copied each "numerical" ref name, and then did a search for each iteration of each one in the article, and pasted in the publication-specific name. Nightscream (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Ugh, that's the only way I know how to do it, too. Damn, I was hoping there was a tool. It's so annoying that VE doesn't use meaningful ref names. —valereee (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't really use tools. I've never learned how. Nightscream (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Asia Carrera

I would like to change the picture on my page but when I upload one it says it is not allowed. I have a photo shot by photographer Don Mantooth in 2000, to which we both own the rights (we shot everything together for mutual use on the internet) which I would like to use. Link is here https://imgur.com/a/iRwXrJB JessicaSteinhauser (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Asia

@JessicaSteinhauser: Okay. A couple of questions:
1. Did you try uploading it to Wikipedia, or its file-hosting sister site, Wikimedia Commons?
2. Do you wish to retain full copyright, free license it or enter it into the public domain entirely? This is important, because it determines where you can upload it, and under what legal status you wish the image to retain. As an example, here is an explanation of the Attribution license I use on my photos, which means others can use it as long as they attribute, or credit it to me. Let me know. Nightscream (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure where I tried to upload it. I mean, I was trying to upload it on my wikipedia page, so whatever that default would be. Anyone can use the photo. I retired 15 years ago, my pictures aren't demand anymore, so I'm not worried about it. Can you please upload it to my page and replace that one at the top, or push the other ones further down? Thank you so much! JessicaSteinhauser (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Asia

@JessicaSteinhauser: Files cannot be uploaded directly to Wikipedia pages. They must first be uploaded to either Wikipedia using the "Upload file" function in the lefthand sidebar, or to Wikipedia's sister site, Wikimedia Commons, which is for hosting free media. The thing is, Wikipedia is extremely strict about copyright. The only exception to this is images which are used with (There's an exception to this called OTRS, but let's keep this simple.)
Stuff uploaded to Wikipedia itself can only be done if you can explain that it qualifies for Fair Use in the rather detailed form you have to fill out when you click that link (Example: a low-res image of the cover of that famous image of Demi Moore nude and pregnant on the cover of Vanity Fair, and only in articles where it's directly relevant to the article subject). If you want to enter your media into the public domain (in which you give up all copyright to it) or free license it so that others can use it under specific circumstances (like they have to credit you for it), then you have to upload it to the Commons. And you can't upload someone else's work, even if you have their permission, because it'll be promptly deleted. This happened with me once when I tried to upload a photo of Dina Lohan that a friend of mine had taken, even though she gave me her permission to do so. So Commons uploads have to be conducted by the owner of the file.
I'm sorry this is so complicated, but I think I can simplify this: Do you want to retain ownership of the photo? Or would you be willing to enter it into the public domain so that you no longer own it? If you can let me know this, it'll be a lot easier to proceed. Nightscream (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I uploaded the photo to Wikimedia commons but then I couldn't edit my page because now it's been changed to "semi-protected mode" so nobody can do anything with it but an editor. So I placed a request to change the photo to the one we discussed. I posted the Commons link in the request. I hope it's all been done correctly now. Thank you so much for your help! JessicaSteinhauser (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Asia

@JessicaSteinhauser: Don't worry. Now that it's uploaded, just give me the url, and I'll take it from here.
One other question: What are your issues with the current photo in at the top of the article? At first I thought you were talking about the one of you in the wetsuit, but I see now that the one at the top is a very nice shot of you all glammed up at a public event. Can you tell me why you want it changed? Nightscream (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I posted the proper filename in the request to edit. The actual URL of the picture is here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Asia_Carrera_2000_photographer_Don_Mantooth.jpg I don't like the picture at the top of the page because I was talking to someone else and I didn't know my picture was being taken. I look like a dork. LOL. I don't like the wetsuit picture either for the same reason :P But at least I'd like the picture at the top of the page to be one where I've got decent hair, makeup and lighting, and I'm looking at the camera :) JessicaSteinhauser (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Asia

 Done BusterD (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Mount Rushmore

Dear Sir or Madam, I note that you placed upon the Mount Rushmore article the refimrpove template. However, you did not state in the Talk section what needed improvement. I did note you also added a citation needed for the line, "The 1980 United States Supreme Court decision United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians ruled that the Sioux had not received just compensation for their land in the Black Hills, which includes Mount Rushmore." Being that it was a Supreme Court decision that stated this in the Wikipedia article United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, which I also mentioned, I did not feel it needed a citation. However, since you did, I added one from the United States Department of Justice. If there is anything else you feel "needs additional citations for verification" as the template you added requests, I would request that you please state the citations you feel are needed in the Talk section, so that others may provide them if possible, or they can remove any content which cannot be cited. Thank you for your contributions. Fanra (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that if you feel that the refimrpove template is no longer needed, that I would appreciate if you would remove it, as I do not wish to remove it unless I knew you are satisfied. Thank you. Fanra (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@Fanra: Hello, Fanra. First, thank you for your extremely polite message. (It's sir, FYI). All important information in an article needs to be supported by citations, and that includes Supreme Court decisions. I'm not aware of any policy or guideline that exempts them. Nor does that existence of a Wikipedia article be used as a citation in another article, per WP:CIRCULAR.
I greatly appreciate that you added a citation to the passage in question, though there were other passages on which I placed citation tags, and after reading your message above, I found a couple of more that I initially missed. I would support removing the refimprove tag after citations are added that support all of them. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Confusing editorial disputes with "vandalism"

Your vandalism to Furious 7 on 28 July 2019 has been reverted. Please do not vandalize Wikipedia. Thank you for your cooperation. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar: You have not established any "vandalism" on my part. I edited the article because it appeared to me that the previous wording was a bit clunky, or awkward. As for your edit summary, the cited source makes no mention that "the fundamental issue was having enough resources to accurately model Walker's face, and that having to model his body on top of that would have been too much," nor anything that makes this interpretation a self-evidence paraphrase of that article. You may disagree, but then the proper thing to do is to discuss the content, and the best way to paraphrase it, and not assume that not liking my wording makes it "vandalism," since Wikipedia defines vandalism to mean the deliberate practice of disrupting the project, and not "something I disagree with." Even a cursory glance at my user page, talk page or edit history could've told you that deliberate disruption of the project is hardly evident from my activities here. Given that you've accumulated over 22,000 edits here since 2004, you should know this by now. I recommend you re-read Wikipedia: Vandalism, and while you're at it, Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith and Wikipedia: No personal attacks. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Your input is requested

I have an RfC going on at Talk:Gwar#RfC_about_GwarBar_vs_GWARbar regarding using all caps in an article and would appreciate the input of some long-standing Wikipedia editors who may be familiar with the policy. Thanks for your time! NJZombie (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Geoffrey Berman: Early life and education

I saw that you removed "and education" a second time after I restored it - and User:KidAd restored it again. Let's talk about this, since you said in your edit summary that it is your practice to remove "and education". You claimed it is "redundant". It absolutely is not redundant; not all education happens during "early life". As KidAd pointed out, Geoffrey Berman was 22 when he graduated from college and 25 when he got his law degree; that is typical, and it isn't exactly "early life". Some people go to graduate school or get advanced degrees when they are well into middle age, and that is also "education". It all goes in this section. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the statement above. I'm all for concision, but I do not support vagueness. Most (if not all) politician biographies include Early life and education, Career, and Personal life sections. There is no clear rationale to deviate from this format. KidAd (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@MelanieN: before I address your arguments in full: What is your source for your assertion that the practice is "standard"? Nightscream (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I have been editing here for over 10 years; in that time I have seen the "Early life and education" format used in most biography articles. But I would suggest that instead of debating this on a user talk page, let's take it to WT:WikiProject Biography and see if there is a standard usage, or if there are rules about when to use it and when not, or if it is a matter of choice by the article author. I'll go there and start a discussion; please follow. User:KidAd too. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@MelanieN: I've been editing here for 15 years, and "Early life" has been the most common practice I've observed. To be certain, some editors have been adding "and education" to that heading, but not all of them, and certainly not me. Whether something is "standard," therefore, would seem to be subjective, and possible circular in its reasoning. Far better, I think, to argue the merits of the practice.
And btw, there is no such as "the article author" on Wikipedia. That's Wikipedia policy.
Let me know when you've started the discussion on the Biography page. Nightscream (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Justin Ponsor: WP:REPCITE

This says nothing about list-defined references which are used at Justin Ponsor. We have already discussed this at Pete Davidson, re: WP:CITEVAR and nothing has changed, so why are you contradicting that content guideline again? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Where does WP:REPCITE say to not name references which are not repeated? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@Koavf: It says that at WP:REPCITE. What do you mean "where"? In the very first sentence of that guideline? Did you actually read it? You want me to copy and paste the text here, when you can simply read it there? Nightscream (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Nightscream, WP:REPCITE does not say anything about giving references names and using them as list-defined references in {{reflist}}, so why did you change that format? Also, why did you change the names of the references themselves? This is what I'm asking repeatedly and you're not answering. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@Koavf: I didn't say it did. I am not talking about "names" or "formats". Did you see me revert the format after you reverted it? If you looked at the edits you'd see that I did not. I'm talking about consecutive citations of the same sources in the same sentence/paragraph, which I removed from the article, but which you restored. You could've restored the formatting issue, but without reverting the REPCITE violation. Nightscream (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Nightscream, And you could have removed the repeat citations without changing the citation style and their names. I'm asking you why you did that. Again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@Koavf: I changed the cite format because it is not the standard format in comics-related articles, and it seemed arbitrary to list them that way, especially in such a small, undeveloped article. But after you put your foot down on that matter, I let that part of the edits go. However, you also restored the violation of WP:REPCITE, without any stated rationale, and that's the portion of the edit that I oppose. Nightscream (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Nightscream, We have discussed this before so I'm confused as to why we're having this discussion again. Are you going to continue ignoring this guideline in the future? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Koavf: I believe we're having this discussion because you initiated it.
That is your signature above at the end of the first message the top of this discussion thread, isn't it?
For my, part I actually considered abandoning this discussion after my second or third message above, but you keep leaving messages, beating this dead horse so badly, his kids are suing you for lost child support.
As for your other question: Have you seen me revert it? Nightscream (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Nightscream, So I guess you're just never going to tell me why you changed the citation style? It's just a forever mystery that you refuse to answer? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I answered your question. Now put down the stick, step away from the horse's corpse, and walk away. Nightscream (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Nightscream, We also discussed this very issue before. Am I going to see you changing citation styles on more articles because you are going to ignore WP:CITEVAR in the future or are you going to abide by that guideline? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KSTP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Mark Waid

Because that's not how the law works. Just calling them is the act of tortious interference. It doesn't mean that it was verified to not be tortious interference since they can say anything they want but it would still be tortious interference under the law. That's how the law works. Gune (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gune: I understand what you're saying, but editors are required to adhere to what the source says. Editors cannot add or remove material based on their own legal conclusions, because Wikipedia considers that to be Original Research, and is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. Nightscream (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Because it isn't saying that. verify Pronunciation /ˈverəˌfī/ /ˈvɛrəˌfaɪ/ Translate verify into Spanish

TRANSITIVE VERBverifies, verifying, verified [WITH OBJECT] 1Make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified.

The definition of the word verified means the article as written is wrong. Gune (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gune: The Verifiability policy is not concerned with truth. It deals with accuracy of attribution. That is, it exists so that readers can verify that the source says what the article says it does. This is explicitly stated at the top of the WP:V page.
The article says that a tortious interference lawsuit was filed against Waid, and that the Antarctic publisher corroborated an aspect of Waid's counterclaim. The cited source indeed says that. Whether the stated positions of any of the participants is true is a separate question, and one that Wikipedia is not equipped to address, since Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information, one whose material is derived mostly from secondary sources, and not a source of original thought.
This is why the article on Flat Earth theory, Holocaust denial and vaccine hesitancy accurately attribute the information in those articles, including a description of those ideas, to the sources cited. But that does not mean that Wikipedia bestows any imprimatur of truth upon those ideas, all of which lack any veridical value. Nightscream (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Then that means Wikipedia is factually wrong and doesn't know what thwe word verify means. Gune (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gune: No. It does not.
It means that the thing being verified is not the thing that you assumed it referred to, an indication that you haven't bothered to learn one of the site's fundamental core policies, despite the fact that you've accumulated over 2,400 edits here since 2007, and that, my friend -- if you don't mind some constructive criticism -- is your fault, not Wikipedia's.
It is not the role of Wikipedia to verify that the information in the sources it cites is true as a question of fact, for the simple reason that such a thing is impossible to do, since Wikipedia is not merely a non-profit project, but one whose content is generated entirely by unpaid volunteers like you and I, which means we do not have the resources to track down and determine the factual accuracy of every thing uttered in each and every source cited in its articles.
How exactly would you propose such a thing be done? If we take your previous edits on the Mark Waid article as an indication, I imagine you think that individual editors like you and I --- who are mostly uncredentialed and anonymous -- should make this call themselves, but obviously this is not possible, since neither the rest of the editing community nor users who come to the site to read its articles have anyway of knowing who you are, what your credentials are, or whether your pronouncements are irrefutably factual or are to one degree or another your personal viewpoint. Moreover, readers have no way of knowing, at a glance, which piece of information in an article came from which editor, or when it was added to the article, so how would the site or its users determine the reliability of the material? Do you imagine that everyone who consults an article is going to go into its edit history, find the exact edit in which you removed that material, see your username (which links to a non-existent user page at present, I might add), and then, without knowing anything about who you are, point to the edit and say, "Aha! Gune edited that! I'm sure he's a reliable source of information?"
Obviously, such a system could not work, which is why Wikipedia forbids original research, which is yet another core policy that for some reason, you haven't learned in 13 years.
The way Wikipedia does work is by restricting the material in its articles to that which is supported by citations of sources that are generally considered reliable. In this way, the burden of reliability is shifted to those sources. Are sources factually correct 100% of the time? Obviously not. But if you have a problem with the cited source, then you should contact them. You don't edit the Wikipedia article citing them simply because you claim that the material is wrong.
The fact remains that someone has filed a suit against Mark Waid citing a particular accusation. That is what the cited source says (as do others: [1],[2], [3]), and thus, that is what the article will reflect. If it becomes known at some point that all those sources are wrong -- then we can change the article, by citing the newer or updated sources that report the correction. I hope this helps. :-) Nightscream (talk)

I bolded what the word verify means in the dictionary definition. So yes it is definitely factually wrong. Gune (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gune: In your opinion. In the opinion of the cited sources, it isn't. On Wikipedia, we go by what sources say about the events in question. Not by how Wikipedia editors interpret or assess those events. If you cannot understand that, and have no interest in learning the policies governing this, then it's possible that you need to reconsider whether you are able to be a part of the editing community here. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the policy is. Words have meanings. If you can't understand what is written in the dictionary then that is entirely on you and nobody else. Gune (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gune: No, it most certainly matters, because Wikipedia's policies govern what content is added to its articles, and WP:V is one of its core policies. It also matters because it necessary to understand a point of view before you refute it, but it appears now that you have no interest in doing so.
The issue is not that I do not understand what the definition of the word is in the dictionary, it's that you do not understand what that policy is referring to, despite the fact that I attempted to explain it to you above, and now, given this most recent comment of yours, that you do not seem to care. If that's the care, then you should cease editing Wikipedia, since you cannot participate in the project if you think that one of its core policies "doesn't matter."
The bottom line remains: Editors do not content to articles based on their personal knowledge. They add content from reliable, published, secondary sources. Period. None of this back-and-forth hair-splitting over the definition of the word is going to change that. If you consult other members of the editing community here, you'll most likely find the same explanation, but if you don't believe me, we can start a discussion on the article talk page. Let me know if you'd like me to get one started. Nightscream (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The Mills At Jersey Gardens

{User Pittsburghmichaels} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittsburghmichaels (talk • contribs) 18:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream, I got your message about my edits to The Mills At Jersey Gardens. Sorry about the incorrect edits. I am not a expirenced Wikipedia editor like you. I'll be sure not to do stuff like that next time. One question if I edit the caption of my image that I took at The Mills At Jersey Gardens that was on the Wikipedia page for that mall, would that be aceptable to use on The Mills At Jersey Gardens Wikipedia page ? >

Hi Nightscream, Thank You for clearing that up about the Century 21 photo on The Mills At Jersey Gardens wikipedia page, and about photos that better represent shopping complexs. I really apreciate it. Thank You (Pittsburghmichaels (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC))

@Pittsburghmichaels: No prob. :-) Nightscream (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

"Hurrican Katrina recovery" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hurrican Katrina recovery. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 13#Hurrican Katrina recovery until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Removing italics from an article title

Greetings and felicitations. I ran across your request while looking for a solution to my own problem, and I seem to have stumbled upon/found an answer. In these cases you need to add the undocumented "event" field, and set both it and the "theme" field to "y" (yes). (I copied this from "Faces of Evil", which the Template:Infobox comics meta series documentation gives as an example, and which happens to have the result you were looking for.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@DocWatson42: Thanks. Much appreciated. Nightscream (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Union City High School

After finding an article for an NFL player linked to Union City High School, I realized that the individual attended a school by that name in Tennessee. I created an article for Union City High School (Tennessee) and in a search on the NCES web site saw that there are several other such schools in the United States. I moved the UCHS article to Union City High School (New Jersey) and have repurposed the UCHS article as a disambiguation page. I have done my best to go through links to UCHS to link to the new, disambiguated article. Please let me know if you have any issues or concerns with how I did this move. Alansohn (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:JinxAnimated.jpg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

"Irish stereotypes" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Irish stereotypes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 14#Irish stereotypes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Horchata

Hi, I saw you changed the variety of English on Horchata to British English, though it was started in ~2004 in American English. I changed it back to American English. I noticed that you said in the comment you were American by the way, so, by the by, I'm British :-) Like to give credit where credit is due! Just watching a channel 4 episode about the topic and it piqued my interest. Sanbear (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sanbear: I'm not aware if there is a specific guideline that requires us to use the spelling of the article used in its inception. (Is there?) I just went by the spelling that appeared to me to be used in the majority of the article. But it's not something I'm going to dig in my heels about. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Selecting images for articles

Hello Nightscream Hope you are enjoying your time Okay, How do I select the picture for some articles? Can you please guide me through it? Kohcohf (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kohcohf:
1. Which article or articles?
2. Is it an image that is already on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, or one that you wish to upload? Please tell me more about the image you want to use, and where you want to use it. Nightscream (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

1. For living celebrities and other things 2. From Wikimedia commons and outside Kohcohf (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start with photos that area already on the Commons.

Commons photos

Free-standing photos To place a photo from the Commons into an article, you need to take its file name, usually with the prefix "File:" right before it, and it place it in between between two sets of opening and closing square brackets, complete with a size parameter (and if you want, a caption and an indication of whether you want it on the left side of the page, since otherwise, photos will show up on the right side of the page by default). This is what the markup looks like when it's empty, with indications of what info goes where:

[[File:NAMEOFPHOTO|thumb|LEFT|CAPTION]]

For an example of a photo I placed in an article in this way, I took this photo of The Boys creator Garth Ennis, and then clicked to edit the "DC Comics section" of his article, and added the following to the top of the article, beneath the heading:

[[File:4.19.12GarthEnnisByLuigiNovi33.jpg|thumb|left|Ennis signing copies of ''[[Hitman (DC Comics)|Hitman]]'' and ''[[Preacher (comics)|Preacher]]'' at a 19 April 2012 appearance at [[Midtown Comics|Midtown Comics Downtown]] in Manhattan]]

If I had not included the "left" markup, it would have shown up on the right side of the article, like this photo in the Chris Claremont article.

Infobox To place a photo in the Infobox (that sidebar in the upper left corner of many articles), you just place its file name (without the prefix) in the Infobox's image parameter.

To put this photo of Ennis into the Infobox at the top of Garth Ennis article, I just went to the article, clicked on "edit" and then put "6.1.19GarthEnnisByLuigiNovi1.jpg" (without the quotes, of course), right next to the image parameter. If you go there now, you'll see what it looks like.

Galleries Then there are galleries. I should emphasize I learned about how these things worked largely by just going to articles, and seeing what these things looked like in the edit mode, and then copying them. If you asked me to create a gallery or a table from scratch, I wouldn't know how to do it. But I created lots of "List of episodes" articles by just going to an article that had that formatting, copying it, and then replacing it with the content of the new article I wanted to create. That's how I created the List of Pawn Stars episodes article.

Same thing with galleries. Just go to my user page, look at the galleries, and see what the html markup looks like in the edit field. I should point out, however, that there are guidelines for when to use and not use galleries, which are described at WP:GALLERY.

Photos outside of the Wikimedia projects

You can upload your own photos to the project, but the Wikimedia Foundation is very strict on what you can upload, particularly where copyright is concerned.

Free files

If you want to upload a public domain photo, or your own photos then either enter them into the public domain, or free license them, as I do with mine, go to the Commons, and either use this upload form, or click on "Upload file" in the lefthand sidebar. Please not that you can only upload public domain or free-licensed photos. You cannot upload any photo that do not have the rights to, even if the rights-holder has given you permission. It will be deleted. I once uploaded a photo of Dina Lohan taken by a friend who gave me permission for it, and it was deleted.

Copyrighted files

If you want to use a copyrighted file in a Wikipedia article, you can only do so if your use of it qualifies for Fair Use, and even then, you have to upload it to Wikipedia. You cannot upload Fair Use images to the Commons, as I mentioned above. Examples of Fair Use images include photo of Demi Moore, which is the topic of its own article. Another example is this other photo of Demi Moore, which in addition to having its own article, is in Demi Moore's own article.

Articles on notable works of visual will often have Fair Use images of those works in them, such as the Miles Morales article, which has an image of him in its Infobox.

Please pay close attention to the non-free rationale beneath each photo on its upload page. You are required to provide that rationale whenever you upload a photo whose use you want to claim is Fair Use, and you're expected to explain that rationale for each article in which it is used.

If you want to upload a Fair Use file, then click on "Upload file" in the lefthand side bar.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you need any further help. Nightscream (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:IronManV5-1.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:IronManV5-1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

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

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

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Question about WP:BLPCAT

Hi, recently I added Shane MacGowan to the Irish Roman Catholics category based on a reliable source that was allowed to stay in the article. While the article continues to describe MacGowan as a Catholic, he has been removed from the Irish Roman Catholics category with the reasoning "Rem per BLPCAT - not notable for this." Does this mean atheists like Garth Ennis or David Cronenberg should also be removed from the Irish atheists category as they're not notable as atheists but as a comic book writer and film director, respectively, and should Martin Scorsese be removed from the American Roman Catholics category for the same reason? Or has MacGowan mistakenly been removed from that category? I know you were not involved in editing these articles, I just thought you might know so I've decided to ask you. Lynchenberg (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Lynchenberg: Categories on Wikipedia are not my forte, but looking through WP:BLPCAT, it says:
"Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources."
I think Ennis' atheism is strongly connected to his written work, which is the reason for his notability. I don't know enough about Cronenberg or McGowan. I think you should read WP:BLPCAT (in case you haven't already), and ask editors who have done considerable editing on that policy page about that. You could even start a discussion on it on its talk page, and invite editors to participate. Hope that helps. Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nightscream/Archive_16&oldid=1220728273"