Jump to content

User talk:Nightscream/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Happy New Year

Thanks for the message. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You're invited!

...to the next New York City Meetup!

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area
Last: 11/3/2007
This box: view • talk • edit

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote for a post-meetup restaurant

I'm charged with making the reservations for us, so let's make it official. We'll do this via voting and everyone including anonymous voters, sockpuppets, and canvassed supporters is enfranchised. Voting irregularities and election fraud are encouraged as that would be really amusing in this instance. Please vote for whichever restaurant you would like to eat at given the information provided above and your own personal prejudices at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#Let's make it official. The prevailing restaurant will be called first for the reservation. If a reservation cannot be obtained at the winning restaurant, the runner-up restaurant will be called thus making this entire process pointless. Voting ends 24 hours after this timestamp (because I said so). ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikilinking Cash Warren

He appears to be somebody of the cusp of notability, not some Joe Schmo off the street who happens to be engaged to Jessica Alba. If you disagree, just revert. :-) east.718 at 05:52, January 16, 2008

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Lawrence Cohen 14:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mill Creek Mall

I have nominated Mill Creek Mall, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill Creek Mall. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Rational Response Squad

In response to your query, my position is that they only had temporary notability -- not real long-term notability -- due to their "blasphemy challenge", unless there is something else to make them notable they aren't.

Have a nice day. --RucasHost (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Look more closely at the policy cited, "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability.". --RucasHost (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Peters Cartridge Company

I've started working on it. More to come. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Corey Clark

Hello Nightscream. I do think that the {{self-published}} tag would have merit, as it is his own book. However, when getting information about a subject, a book or interview by the person is a good source, IMO. Hope this helps, Keilana|Parlez ici 02:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Judd Winick

Didn't mean to delete the Succession Boxes, just meant to delete the Green Arrow template, since he hasn't moved the character forward in any significant way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGarbageMan (talk • contribs) 22:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Atheist and Agnostic Group

An article that you have been involved in editing, Atheist and Agnostic Group, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheist and Agnostic Group. Thank you. George100 (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Corey Worthington

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Corey Worthington. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. AW (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

MySpace

  • The fact that Pesta spoke with the site's founder, who personally made a promise to protect the profile. This is relevant for obvious reasons.
But not properly sourced (can't be see otherwise we wouldn't have all that fuss over tom's exact status).
  • Pesta's attempts to rectify the matter by contacting customer service. This is relevant because it establishes that the deletion was not a mistake, and that proper channels were attempted before it became a public matter.
The quality of myspace's customer service has nothing to do with religious descrimination
  • A petition that Pesta circulated, and a comment by a Harvard Law chaplain on the matter. This is relevant because it establishes the opinions of others on the matter, including a prominent Ivy League figure who may not be biased by a direct affiliation with the group (given that he's a chaplain, and the group is an atheist one).
Pesta does work in academia. Far from imposible that they know each other. In any case I would tend to argue that the opinions of someone who actualy deals with IT would be more relivant.
  • The new profile that Pesta has. This is relevant as an external link for the same reason that External links in general are a necessary part of any WP article. They allow readers to read Pesta's comments, as well as allow skeptics to decide if his position has merit (since they may conclude that the fact that he now has another MySpace profile mitigates his allegations).
Err we do not include external links in the flow of the article text.

Which of these things would you argue is not relevant to the matter?

The matter isn't really relivant. None of the above appears in a reliable source thus has no place in the article.

As for magnitude of the event wikipedia is smaller than myspace and the current Muhammad image fuss is bigger than what we are talking about. Does get mentioned in the wikipedia article.Geni 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebreality

AFDs are generally left up to debate for five days. At the end of that time, some other admin will handle it (there are people who go through processing these on a regular basis). It would generally be considered bad form to close your own noms.--Pharos (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Betsy Ross House has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you.

ClanDestine image

The thing is I replaced it due to a lot of the same reasons. In my opinion the original image is just slightly clearer. As for the green around Imp, you're nor going to get an image of that gold foil cover that doesn't have some discolourization. In that respect I think the barely noticible green around Imp is better than the massive amounts of pink discolourization around her and the rest of the characters in the second cover image. The over all colour of the first image is also truer to the gold of the real life cover as opposed to the yellowish-orange of the second cover which looks nothing like the cover's real life gold foil.

I don't have a scanner, but if you can get a better image that addresses my concerns, I'm more than willing to compromize. I don't really want an edit war either. :) Stephen Day (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't argue against the black smuges. I simply stated what I considered to be my concerns about your image. As for you're not believing that I would use a true to life arguement, why? I honestly feel that its of primary importance to have cover images that reflect how the cover actually was -- as much as that is possible. Why shouldn't that be something to strive for?
The Image now being used is fine, so there will be no more arguements from me. :) Stephen Day (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My edits

Hello, I got your warning for the second time (my apologies) about the edit to List of other South Park residents. I got that bit about the R/L confusion being Japanese and not Chinese from Wikipedia's own Engrish page, just 2 let u no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.219.159 (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris Rock

Saw and tried to address your questions about Rock's "Comedic Style." Here's my entry to the discussion page: "Excellent point; I tried to clarify what the original author appears to have meant -- that becoming famous obliged Rock to fill an 'ethnic spokesperson' role with which he was uncomfortable; it's a point I've heard Rock discuss in interviews, and one I've heard fellow standup David Chappelle make as well." Does that solve it, do you think? Zoidbergmd (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarified, verified, sourced. Zoidbergmd (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area
Last: 1/13/2008
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

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

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris Rock

The truth is always appropriate. --TheTruthiness (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

re: Anita Bryant

The 'box is fixed. And I see what the problem was, that 'box is designed to not use the [[Image:<filename.ext>|<size>px|<caption>]] syntax. What you would need to put in is:

  • The file name (name and extension) as the "Img" parameter;
  • The caption as "Img_capt"; and
  • The desired output size as "Img_size".

The 'box is set up to default to 220px, and while I didn't check, it is possible that it's set up to cap the image at that as well.

And just a side note... using the album cover runs counter to fair use with bios of living people. Unless there's a very, very good reason for it.

- J Greb (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Pedro Zamora

It was a gay newspaper in South Florda, it was known as TWN, not sure if it stood for something in not. I uncovered a file I had on Pedro when I worked for Congress that was full of stuff on him. articles, photos, legal documents. Going through it all.. I maybe re-writing some stuff in his article based on what I find. I have been looking for this file for ages, I knew I had it somewhere, trying to find the last picture taken of Pedro a few days before he died. I think it would be important to show in the article, what AIDS can do to someone. Callelinea (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry

hi just wanted to apologise about my attitube i was just a bit annoyed u had blocked the ip. also i think i should have phrased my accusation that the aticle was wrong was inaccutate what i should have said is that the article was slightly miss leading as from my interpretation and feel free to disagree they are are also trying to get the attention of the device to steal it as well as the art. Once again i apologise for the attitude however your point about my fellows deserving it does sound like a collective punish ment however i feel that this is your decision and i wish you all the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobol (talk • contribs) 10:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Meet up

It was good to see you again! Do you know when you are going to upload the video? Thanks for doing that. --David Shankbone 23:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey - I've been off-line and just saw your note. If you need uploading, let me know - although I'm out visiting my family and my access to a computer is limited. --David Shankbone 05:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion avoidance

Such activity is explicitly prohibited by Wikipedia. For an example of a MfD I placed pointing this out less than one week ago, see this. Also, if this user is creating new users to do this, it is also in violation of Wikipedia's alternate account policy and should be brought up to the sockpuppet noticeboard. Especially note the third criteria of this of guideline, this guideline, and criteria 4 for CSD for rationales why this stuff should be deleted from Wikipedia.

If I were you, I would place the Template:Db-g4 speedy deletion tags on all the offending pages. If the author removes them, bring them up immediately to WP:MfD. If you have been involved with direct conflicts with this user, don't delete the content yourself. Let an "uninvolved" administrator do it so you don't mired in an unnecessary fight.ScienceApologist (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked over your WP:SSP. It looks like that the user wasn't starting new user accounts but instead was just listing them under their user-subpage in defiance of WP:DELETE. If such is the case, it is not sockpuppetry per se. I commented at the sockpuppetry case to that effect. You may wish to close the case so as to not cause undue confusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, I note that criteria 4 has some weird wording that confused User:Rudget to the tune of user-protected content. There is a little bit of latitude given users to keep content for improvement in their user space. Say, for example, that an article on a famous corporation is deleted because it is an advert. It is perfectly acceptable to sandbox this content as a subpage of your user account to try to improve it to the standards necessary for keeping it included in the encyclopedia. What is not allowed is for someone to keep deleted material at their user page for an extended period of time as a way of circumventing deletion discussions. That's why things can get weird. If an uninvolved administrator who isn't aware of this distinction doesn't come around after a while, you might just want to make a wholesale WP:MfD for the entire lot (similar to this) so that you don't have to worry about this anymore. Sorry this is so complicated. Wikipedia navigation through policy pages can be a nightmare. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tlogmer - none of those users exist, so I've closed the case. Rudget. 18:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. SA gives good advice above about SSPs. Rudget. 18:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Tagging user sub pages for deletion

hell, why are you doing this? Usually we grant some leeway to user sub pages. As these are not in article space, it would be better to MfD. Dlohcierekim 20:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

See what I mean about people not understanding? In any case, there are two issues here:
  1. Improving content is fine. People should be given leeway to use some deleted content to improve an article in a sandbox for eventual posting back to article space.
  2. Placing content in a user subpage to subvert a deletion discussion is not okay and is strictly forbidden by guidelines and policy.
Administrators have to use their better judgment to determine whether the first or second case is happening. MfDing may be appropriate, but it looks, in my humble opinon, like the user who is perpetrating this is not actively improving the content but is instead creating a walled garden to keep favorite articles that were deleted according to proper deletion discussions still on Wikipedia. Such "underground keeps" are not allowed. YMMV. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Too many administrators not knowing deletion policy!

Yikes! So, I listed the lot of them at MfD for you here. Give it a week, they should be gone. If someone gives you grief, tell them to look at the article histories. Clearly the user is not interested in improving the articles for eventual reintegration into article space. Cheers, ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to comment there. I'd like to read your side of the story. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Photos and Video from the Meetup

"Upload file" on Wikimedia Commons is under the participate box in the left hand menu there (or you can just click on Commons:Upload).

For the videos, the best solution at this point would be sending them to my e-mail through http://www.sendthisfile.com/ (no size limits there!). Then, I'll make the edits and upload them to the Internet Archive myself. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Ultimates

Hello.Your recent edits to ultimates removed a number of items of cited real world information. Please revert or re-edit to include that material, as otherwise, it constitutes blanking. real world content is preferable to lengthy summaries, and while it appears you shortenedthe summaries, you seem to have done a great deal of that by removing citations, which is a problem. ThuranX (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(reply from my talk page)
It comes to to citing the magazines by their legal title, which is the indecia. There has been a degree of static over this with some series though - the original Thor, Iron Man, and X-Men runs not having the cover adjectives and the change of some series to drop "The", such as The Avengers and The Defenders, when they went through a renumbering.
As for referencing the cover title, and the fan/common usage of it, yes, it should be mentioned in the intros. Same, or at least similar, situations exist with Countdown to Final Crisis and Countdown to Infinite Crisis. The leads there start with the indecia title and explain why the article uses a different name. The difference with Ultimates being 1) Wikipedia naming convention to not use "The" unless it is part of the official/legal title of a work; and 2) the Countdown series can be said to use the semi-official titles for clarity. - J Greb (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I did it myself. ThuranX (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to set things straight about wrongful allegations

Nightscream:

I Received your message dated March 5th @6:51UTC regarding my "ALLEGED" vandalisim of Rob Schneider page, However the ONLY thing that i did was Remove the date of death (2 March, 2008) that had recently been added since he is NOT dead. If you compare the edit before me to my edit you will see that the date was the ONLY thing i modified [1] The IP address that was used to post the WRONG information is "165.123.139.116" which traces back to "dhcp0634.nic.resnet.group.upenn.edu"

BTW a few excerpts that you might want to look into: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." "If a user treats situations which are NOT clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors."

Please Remove any Vandalisim marks on my IP address and contact me if you have any other questions. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.171.93 (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream: Thank you for helping helping set things straight, Apparently i removed the error right after it was introduced so it seemed that i had done it however it is cleared up now. THANKS FOR YOUR HELP!! New wiki user willywonka266 (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for work on Ultimates

A thank you for your work on the Ultimates articles! There's still a lot more to do and hopefully more editors will get involved. Stextc (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Name

Beast Machines? Krem (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you named after a certain goofy bat kid? Krem (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Coral Smith article

Hello Nightscream! You've already blocked me unjustifiably so, causing me to have to get another admin involved in order to undo your ban here [2]. This led to you making a faulty accusation here [3] that I had added something into the article that I didn't, yet you tell me to read clearly when you're the one who didn't read clearly what I actually wrote. When I reverted that and corrected you about it (very civily) here [4], you came back and came up with yet a new reason to revert it while leaving a particularly incivil message in your edit summary right here[5]. You commented on my talk page that you don't believe you're quibbling about this. I consider it quibbling to become so uncivil over edits of this nature. I also consider it particularly hypocritical of you to say "Stop reverting it, and stop edit warring with me" while reverting back the edit as you did here [6]. Note: You've now reverted that edit twice to the one time I've reverted it.

As for your objection that Real World/Road Rules Challenge is not a spin-off of The Real World and Road Rules, I have provided a source, despite the fact that I think the name of the show is a blatant indicator that The Real World/Road Rules Challenge is a spin-off of both shows. BicMacDad18 (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream, judging by your reply and revert despite my sourcing of the information, we obviously need a third party to step in so I've informed MaxSem here [7]. Feel free to comment there, but I'm going to move on and just wait for his take on it BicMacDad18 (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

MaxSem says we better go to dispute resolution or something. Haha! He's like I am not getting involved with all this! haha! So much for that. Look, I don't know why I care so much about it. If having that edit means that much to you, I give up. What I won't give up on tho is figuring out how to be your friend and get on good terms with you Mr. Man ;) BicMacDad18 (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to involve yourself in this discussion on the Mediation Cabal page [8]. I certainly do hope tensions from a day ago have cooled down and we can now discuss this edit disagreement in a civil fashion. I have provided my personal reasons for why I believe Real World/Road Rules Challenge spinned off from both shows and you're free to provide yours if you want. Thank you! BicMacDad18 (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Nightscream, that source seems to be a blog (i.e. self-published), which isn't allowed unless the author is an established expert in the field who has previously had his work in that field published by a reliable third-party publication. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper). The onus would be on the person wanting to use the source to show that that was the case. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin talk|edits 17:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick update. I posted this reference since it’s both online and have several references for further research. I could of course give references to several books claiming the same fact, but these facts would be less transparent to check and harder for others to verify. For instance, a very credible source would be "Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies" (Manchester University Press, 1975)... Or you can simply link to one of the many websites refering the same fact.... Such as the link i provided, or even this one: http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html. Best regards, Øyvind.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.144.228.49 (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

MySpace

I can't look at your drawings because I'm not on Myspace. Maybe one day I'll get into it. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Alonso R. del Portillo

Could you please look over the article and give your imput in the AFD. Callelinea (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We obviously disagree. I have gone over the article over and over and that is why I have placed so many in-line citiations, so that no one could claim that the article was baised. I only stated the facts with a nuetral point of view as I have done with all my edits. I see nothing wrong with working on articles of which a person is an expert on as long as it is based on verifiable facts. I have no ill-will toward you and I respect your right to disagree with my position.. But 9 months ago you felt the article should be included and now because I have written the article, you think it should be removed.. You should decide based on the merits of the articles and its references not on what you think should be or not be wikipedia policy. Callelinea (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study

Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Reliable sources for BLP's

Hi, In order to keep the discussion in one place, I've replied to your question here. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: BicMac18 Sock

I put in the Checkuser request here. It turns out that the user is known for jumping from account to account and makes the same types of edits to the same pages.Gwandoya Talk 02:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Assistance

I'd like to help settle the disagreement between yourself, BicMacDad18 and Gwandoya. If you're willing to take my assistance, please let me know. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking?

Dude how can you say that I vandalized "rational response squad" watch any of their videos they have no respect for anyone of relgion. They constantly put out hate speech and if I dont put that in wikipedi THE ENCYCLOPEDIA then I am not being fair to anyone. We report the holocaust,lynchimg,and the China-Tibet riots on this damned website so why cant I put up simple facts. They are a hate group you cant deny that. I did not vandalize that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.164.133 (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I see that you're evenhanded. Looking at the post above, I see that you are trying to play fair and minimal in both sides of the Atheist-Theist debate. I did not edit Kirk Cameron's article to be nonfactual. I did so because I felt it did not accurately reflect the event. I see that you have a tendency to pare down every article regarding this conflict to bare-bones. I agree with this strategy. And to whacko guy above me, Atheists are not a hate group, they are simply trying to help the world see how much better it could be without religion, like Christianity. Also there is a "D" where a "C" should be in your new edit. User: 128.210.71.26 22:15, 9 April 2008

Unblocking access

I'm Tarnya Dunning from Telstra. I tried to create a user account today but discovered that my IP address is blocked (202.12.144.21). I believe that it has been blocked by you and I seek your assistance in removing this block. My purpose is to contribute to the Telstra-related pages by providing updated information via the discussion pages. T.dunning@team.telstra.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.198.208 (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking access to the Telstra-related sites. Tarnya Dunning —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarnya Dunning (talk • contribs) 09:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MarloBettyBonding.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MarloBettyBonding.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RDR vs. Rowling

You added some good material, but the proper place to put it is in Legal disputes over Harry Potter. Thanks. Serendipodous 06:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled

Hey, thanks for the offer, I might take you up on that. BTW, thanks for stepping in. RC-0722 247.5/1 00:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream, are you aware that I've been here for two years? You didn't link a diff on my page, but assuming you were referring to the sentence I removed earlier today from the overview, that was discussed on the talk page and in the edit summary. If you disagree with the reasoning, please feel free to discuss on the talk page, but otherwise comments or templates on my talk page probably aren't necessary. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Did I remove something from the talk page? If I did it was only accidental. I don't see that I did though; possibly you've mixed me up with someone else? Mackan79 (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, no problem then, that would explain it. Thanks for checking again. Mackan79 (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Be a little more careful with sources - As far as I can tell, box office mojo only goes back to 1999 or so, and thus reallyc an't be used to talk about "having the most theatres" at the opening, or other absolute values like that. The New Scientist article (ref name=NewScientist12April2008 DOES say that "For starters, the film will open on 1000 screens in the US, a lot for a niche documentary. Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 opened on 870 screens, while Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth opened on just four". So there's something to be said there, aye, but you need to watch your source's limits. Anyway, do you REALLY think Expelled beat out the opening of those old Beatles documentaries? Or even the Rolling Stone ones? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Um... I don't follow your question about why a site that has info 1999-present wouldn't have information about a 2004 film. By the way, I really really hate the word assert. Oh, and I'm exhausted and slightly drunk. That obvious yet? Night, laddo! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

hey what is that stuff you put on my talk page about?

Seriously. Angry Christian (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the block? Please provide diffs and an explanation for what appears to be an unreasonable block with inadequate notice. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 19:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to discuss the block with you. I think your efforts to restore civility and deal with inappropriate talk page use at Talk:Expelled are admirable. But unless I'm reading incorrectly, you issued Angry Christian (talk · contribs) a warning to cease being uncivil on the article talk page; when he responded irately here, you blocked him. In other words, it appears that you blocked him because he was rude to you and reacted irately to your warning. I don't think a block under those terms was necessarily in keeping with the warning you issued, and blocking people because they've been moderately uncivil to you on your talk page isn't always helpful. Am I missing something - were there other comments that led to the block? If not, I'd suggest that while Angry Christian's comments and conduct here are not to be condoned, that you unblock him with the understanding that he will chill, moderate his tone, and let this go. MastCell Talk 19:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I've raised the question of this block at WP:AN/I#User:Angry Christian with a request for an early unblock. Your participation will be welcome. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 19:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Please notice the immediate Fundamentalist Christian POV edits put to the Expelled article about 2 minutes after blocking Angry Christian. I think a case should be made for the desysopping of such an admin who choses to use his or her own POV to make the article work in their direction. Nightscream is using his "power" to push out editors who are against his POV. If he were a good faith admin, he would brought his case to an uninvolved admin to determine how much further the warnings should go. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have unblocked User:Angry Christian. You'll find my reasoning at the AN/I discussion. henrik•talk 22:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled

You really need to step away from that article for a few days. Between your abuse of your admin privileges and personal attacks on OrangeMarlin, it looks like you are much too worked up about this topic. There are plenty of other articles in Wikipedia. Please calm down and walk away from this one. Guettarda (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream, the most violent anti-ID POV-pushers on Wikipedia are in all probably religious editors, who maybe feel ID discredits religion, and must therefore be aggressively debunked at all costs, even at the cost of the credibility of Wikipedia.
Atheists, who are quite dispassionate about the topic, and think ID is complete crap, but that scholarly standards require that even crap should first be expressed in its own terms before refuted, are simply not welcome there. This is my experience, as an atheist expelled from ID articles. I recommend you step away, I certainly will. Just let them play debunkers all through the article, who cares, really. --Merzul (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your level-headed response. My rant here above is an over-reaction, and assumes bad faith and ulterior motives. Thanks for not pointing it out in your post :) I'm just frustrated, that's all. Many many of the editors on that page, especially dave souza, are open to reasonable discussion; that's the avenue you should pursue. I take back my accusations about the POV and motives of the other side, but I don't feel I have the time or energy to engage in discussion there. --Merzul (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've attacked Orangemarlin? Where have I done this? Can you quote me a passage from me that comes across as a personal attack?

Yes, you attacked OM. And I quoted your attacks on the article's talk page.

As for the topic, it would seem that many on that page are "worked up" about it

Be that as it may, the other admins on the page have remained calm enough that they have not violated the blocking policy. And not a lot of other people are making the sort of misleading accusations you made.

I seem to be one of those who doesn't allow himself to be influenced by his personal POV on the evolution/creationism topic into attacking others.

Your actions say otherwise.

Given Orangemarlin's reasoning, or lackthereof, as seen on that Talk Page discussion I initiated, how you arrive at the assertion that I've done the attacking is beyond me

Really? You claimed that OM was trying to "sneak" thing in. Not only is that a total failure to assume good faith and a smear against him, it's also an unacceptable failure on your part to fairly represent the situation. You were the one trying to change the article. Undoing your change is not a "sneak". Using false accusations to attack another editor is unacceptable.

I could easily stay away from that article for a few days, but that's not going to change the problem of the clearly POV nature of the edits of his I pointed out

This isn't about the article, it's about your behaviour there. Between your abuse of admin privileges and your personal attacks, it would appear that you are far too worked up about the article. So please, step back. You are not the saviour of Wikipedia. The article will sort itself out without the participation of someone who uses blocks willy-nilly...that just creates an atmosphere of fear an drama in the article. Your participation in the article is disruptive. Please step away. Guettarda (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Asserting that weasel words other such violations of NPOV are being violated is not an "attack", so long as the accusation is illustrated in a manner to the exclusion of other explanations. Just a few moments ago, in fact, I made a post on the article's Talk Page in which I again explained to others there why some of the wording that keeps being reverted into the article violates NPOV and WP: POINT. That's not an attack.

And what does this have to do with your attacks on OM?

I did not violate the blocking policy, as I explained in detail on that noticeboard, when I pointed out the three warnings on the article's Talk Page, and a fourth, final one on the personal Talk Pages of three editors, including Angry Christian

Yes, you did. Your block would have been a bad block even if you weren't engaging in a dispute with AC, but since you were engaged in a dispute, your block violated the blocking policy. If you had actually thought this was a blockable offense, you could have reported it at AN/I. Using your blocking privileges to gain ground in a content dispute, as you did, is a violation of the blocking policy. It's your responsibility to understand the blocking policy before you block anyone.

For him to respond with a profane rant on my Talk Page was perfectly legitimate grounds for blocking

No. No, no, no, no, no. Profanity is not forbidden. Ranting, quite frankly, isn't a blockable offense. But you miss the point: YOU cannot block him while YOU are in a dispute with him. This is about YOUR misbehaviour.

Even if for the sake of argument we put this aside, and the block were judged to be a bad call, how does this constitute a "history", or tendency to block "willy-nilly".

You blocked someone against policy. That is your history. That is your record. That is who you are. It looks like you were offended by his reply, and reacted in anger. That was willy-nilly. That is preferable to the alternative, which is that you made a bad block in an instance where the blocking policy forbids you from blocking after careful consideration of the matter. In that case you should be de-adminned immediately.

One bad block out of all the edits and blocks under my belt is a "history"? How so?

It is history because that's what you did, that's who you are. All I (and many other editors) know of you is your POV-pushing at Expelled and your violation of the blocking policy. Sorry. As soon as you realise what you did wrong and work to make amends, then you start to remove this stain from your character. But it's far harder to get stains out than it is to get them in.

Do you really think you can gauge an admin's overall habits by one block that you didn't like?

It isn't a matter of likes or dislikes, it's a matter of your violation of the blocking policy.

I'm one of the few people not so worked up about the article...

If this were true, then you would have taken my advice and stepped away. Everything else aside, your response to my advice shows that you are worked out. In addition, of course, you should always be wary when you find yourself in the position of being the only one who can save Wikipedia.

...that I'm engaging others in personal attacks...

You can split hairs about what to call your attacks, but you made false accusations against OM which are the antithesis of "assuming good faith" and are anything but civil. They are, of course, also untrue, since OM was not trying to "sneak" anything in, he was undoing your alteration of the article. Returning the article to its previous state is not "sneaking". And your misrepresentation of his actions is unacceptable behaviour on your part.

...or doing POV warring.

You can choose to parse the word "warring", but your edits do move the article further away from NPOV.

By contrast, Orangemarlin's edits are clearly POV, and if you read the subsequent posts in that Talk Page section, you'll see that others see this too.

Most editors do not see it that way. They are not "clearly POV". True, there are a few vocal editors on the talk page, but do you really want to hitch your wagon to someone like NCDave?

His only response to the five points I attempted to outline to him ---in a civil discussion-- was to dismiss my attempt at resolution with a rude rant.

Dude, seriously. Your "five points" were an unacceptable attack. Your accusations were not civil. Your accusations were not acceptable. Your accusations were the reason I asked you to step away from the article, since clearly you are too worked up about the issue to behave in a constructive manner.

Your assertions about my actions saying otherwise are easy to make if you selectively cherry-pick among those actions, to the exclusion of all the good faith edits and statements I've made, and to the exclusion of the policy violations of OM and others.

You violated the blocking policy. You abused your editing privileges. You made false accusations against another editor. You replied to my advice with this angry rant. I am not "selectively cherry-picking" anything (that's redundant, anyway). I am describing a pattern of behaviour. You need to calm down. You need to step away from this article.

Please.

Guettarda (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How about this - I'll join the discussion if you step away from the article for a week? Take a week to calm down. There are more important things in the world than Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I explained in detail how my assertion about OM's edits being POV were not an "attack"

Nope. You did nothing of the sort. You rambled on about weasel words, when the issue was that you had falsely accused OM of "sneaking" material into the article. You have yet to either strike your false accusations or apologise to OM. You most certainly have done nothing whatsoever to explain anything.

I explained in detail why his edits and yours are blatant POV-pushing, in violation of WP: POINT and WP: NPOV.

You asserted that, you didn't explain anything.

"History" is a word that connotes a long pattern of behavior

Yep. First you edit-warred to move the article away from NPOV. Then you blocked in violation of the blocking policy and abused your admin privileges to do so. Then you made false accusations against OM. Then you launched into me. "Long" by Wikipedia standards, not global standards. Pattern - indubitably.

I ask you again: Is one block judged by others to be a bad call enough to gauge an editor or admin's overall history?

We aren't talking about that, are we? We are talking about abuse of admin privileges. We are talking about refusal to admit or learn from your mistakes. You can't even admit that it was a bad block - your choice of words takes all the blame away from you (despite your clear violation of the blocking policy) and places it on the others who "judged" your block.

You say it's all you know of me. Isn't judging me on that one thing predjudicial[sic]?

It isn't "one thing". It's a pattern of behaviour. And given the potential for disruption by admins, we can't be too careful. You have shown yourself to be capable of disruptive behaviour. You have shown that you are not willing to learn from your mistakes. You have shown that you are unwilling to listen to advice. I see a problem.

As far as realizing that what I did was wrong, well, I already apologized for not separating my admin duties and editing on that noticeboard.

You have not apologised where it mattered: to AC. And your "apology" is pretty half hearted. Like your comment here - it would seem that you are unwilling to take responsibility for your actions, you are unwilling to approach the matter introspectively.

More importantly, acknowledging your mistakes is the beginning. You have followed that up with more misbehaviour. Different misbehaviour, but that's beside the point. A grudging apology is barely the beginning. You betrayed the trust of the community. You have the opportunity to earn that trust once again. No one forced you to abuse the tools. It was your choice. You had the opportunity to listed to advice. Instead, you respond with more angry accusations. Your actions don't match your words.

You have not established POV pushing on my part on Expelled

I have not established that you blocked AC either. I haven't even established that you edited the Expelled article. That doesn't make them any the less true.

I have asked you and Orangemarlin repeatedly to explain to me how the disputed edits constitute POV on my part, and you have failed to respond directly

Wow, you're a hoot. The only relevant point is your attacks on OM. You have not addressed them in the least. I couldn't care less about your demands. I do care about your misbehaviour. The main issue isn't POV, it's the fact that you have been disruptive at Expelled with your blocks and your false accusations. Let's deal with the important things first.

By contrast, I have explained how your edits are POV, and three or four other people, such as Dave Souza, clearly saw the same thing I did

Really? Dave said my edits are POV? Please do tell - which edits of mine has Dave described in this way? And where has be done that? I know it wasn't on Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. So where did Dave say this? If Dave criticised an edit of mine, then I really need to stop and re-think my position. On the other hand, if you are simply making shit up, then I must ask you to stop.

If you can respond to my questions about the edits at the discussion I began a short while ago (see below), again, please do so.

We are talking about your misbehaviour...you know, like your false accusations against OM. And, I suspect, the further false claims you just made.

If you follow that reasoning, then it applies to everyone

Nope. Only people who abused admin tools to block one editor and followed that up by making false accusations against another.

If you conclude, arbitrarily, that any continued participation in the article indicates that one is "worked up", and that stepping away from it does not, then why are you and OM still editing it? Are you admitting to being worked up yourself? Why does continued editing constitute agitation for people you disagree with, but not yourself?

I haven't blocked anyone involved in the article, and neither has OM. You see, a higher standard is expected of us admins. Of course, if an admin took me aside and showed me that I was going overboard, I probably would take a little break.

No, they were five areas in the article in which he and I were in dispute

Nope, they were an attack.

...which I explained in detail.

No, you have not explained your attacks on OM. You have not addressed your attacks. You haven't addressed anything substantive.

Even if you thought that my assertion about his sneaking his POV into one of those areas was an "attack", how does that make my explanations about the other four passages an "attack"

Seriously? You smear someone, and then ask "but why didn't they address my other four points?" You were not civil. Anyway, OM's an adult, he can answer for himself. And if he abuses admin tools and then falsely smears someone, I most certainly will raise the issue with him.

Wikipedia requires us to discuss the passages we disagree with.

But it does not require us to discuss things with people who engage in false smears against us or who use intimidation.

He chose not to do that, and you're doing the same by not responding to them

Hey, it's not my fight. I was reading through your points and considering their pros and cons when I got to your smear. At that point I realised that there were far bigger problems that needed to be dealt with here.

Exaggerating all five areas I discussed as an "attack" is not an accurate description of that discussion on my part.

While I don't think you have a foot to stand on in that regard, we aren't talking about the merits of your arguments. We're talking about your behaviour.

Given that you and OM are making the same accusation about me by claiming that my edits are POV--without actually explaining how---again, how does this principle not apply to you two as well. Since you're accusing me of POV, does that mean that you should step away from the article??

I really don't have to answer this yet again', do I? Who have I blocked? Who have I threatened? Who have I falsely accused of "sneaking" things into the article. The fact that your edits have a POV problem is entirely beside the point. You aren't the only one with that problem. But you are the only one who has recently abused your admin privileges on that article. You're in a class by yourself.

You can either respond directly to the specific reasoning being offered for my position, and offer your own for your position, which WP prescribes for edit conflicts, or you can choose to ignore the discussion, and label it as an "attack". If you do the latter, you're signaling to others that you're not willing to work with those you disagree with to improve the article

I am trying to deal with the problems in your behaviour. This isn't about the article. It's about the way you are behaving at the article.

Wikipedia does not prescribe discussing edit disputes solely based on the terms of single editors. You are in no position to tell others to leave for a week, especially since you have yourself participated in the exact behavior that you attribute to me as the reason for your recommendation. Again, if you refuse to participate in the discussion, it's only going to look bad for you. Let's try and discuss this, okay?

This isn't an editing dispute. This is an intervention to try to get you off a path that is both disruptive to the article and self-destructive for you. The place for discussing your behaviour is here. It doesn't belong on the article talk page. The only thing that "looks bad" for me is that I appear to be stupid enough to waste my time on a lost cause. But I'll say it again - walk away from the article for a while. Take a break. You look like you need it. Wikipedia won't collapse without you. Your reputation, though, is collapsing. Be smart about this. Guettarda ([[User talk:|talk]]) 05:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this. I've had no problems with Guettarda's edits, but in my opinion some changes you made were inaccurate and have problems of undue weight, giving "equal validity" to a pseudoscience position. Your descriptions of OrangeMarlin were unnecessary personal attacks which detracted from the points you were trying to make about his reversion of your edits. Guettarda is giving wise advice to cool off a bit and take care, whether you do that by stepping away from the article or by being extremely scrupulous about avoiding personal remarks and making no use of your position as an admin is up to you. I'm sure you were acting in good faith, but carelessness can cause problems. . . dave souza, talk 09:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you've asked for examples. At the start of Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed#Overview section, singling out "Orangemarlin's edits" as POV was an unfortunate misrepresentation, as Orangemarlin had reverted your edit to a version he felt was more NPOV, incorporating edits by others who he agreed with. Then claiming that "Orangemarlin may think he can sneak an opinion into the article by citing it as the opinion of a reviewer" is a personal attack, asserting motives to Orangemarlin's reversion to include a quotation added by another editor. It's not acceptable to accuse any editor of trying to "sneak" things in – you can say it looks like a hatrack, or whatever, but don't assume mischief. Remember to assume good faith. The same section includes sarcastic remarks about "scientists selected by the producers to represent those supporting evolution". Though you were accusing OM of that, it was actually my edit. In my opinion it's important to convey the point that, as shown by reliable sources elsewhere in the article, they didn't just find atheist scientists by coincidence, and not all scientists working on evolution are atheists as the film's producers openly want viewers to think. It may be a clumsy way of putting it and I'm open to suggestions for improvement, but it's a piece of framing in the film that we must be careful to avoid reinforcing. I think you've noticed that I also felt that there were problems of undue weight in the lead section.[9]. .. Hope you find that helpful, . . dave souza, talk 20:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream, I am still a newbie at this so please forgive my transgressions :) Let me explain the method to my madness: Rather than get in an editing war, I chose to appeal directly to the people hell-bent on trashing the movie at all costs, in hopes that I could shame them into writing a better article. The over-the-top bias in the article has not gone unnoticed, and has become a hot topic in the blogosphere.

I know it's difficult if not impossible to forge a consensus in such situations, and I appreciate your Herculean efforts to do so.DrHenley (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeph Loeb

No, I haven't heard anything from the anon editor as yet, but I think it may be best just to stick to the year of birth, that's something that WP:BLP guides us to and it's a silly thing to edit war over really. Just my 2p. Hiding T 11:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV editors to turn to

Hi, due real life concerns I won't be editing actively for a few days. And I wouldn't want to comment there without carefully looking at the situation, requiring at least an hour. On the other hand, if you are determined to make the article neutral, then there are two editors I would like to recommend you turn to:

  • User:Silence, himself certainly anti-ID, but one of the most remarkable NPOV editors I know. He has corrected me many times when I have gone too far with pro-atheist POV-pushing.
  • User:PelleSmith, who is always vigilant on the WikiProject:Atheism talk page, to make sure we don't engage too much in atheist POV-pushing. At least, he is concerned that we don't leave the impression of being non-neutral.

These users have an incredible knack for NPOV, and also can't be accused of being pro-ID. I would then consider turning to User:Pastordavid; he is the most NPOV editor I know, but I'm not sure how the editors there would react to him; he has offered his assistant on my talk page though. User:KillerChihuahua is another remarkably NPOV-competent admin, who certainly can not be accused of ever pushing a pro-ID cause. These are editors to turn to because they are guaranteed to form their own opinion.

If these guys don't agree with our assessment of the article's bias, then I would fully accept that the article is neutral; and I would need to readjust my view of the precise implications of WP:DUE.

If you don't feel comfortable turning to these people, I could later today leave a note on the WP:Ath talk page, where I know many NPOV editors hang out. The goal of WikiProject atheism is to guarantee consistency across atheism related pages, the concern here is that

  • The Root of All Evil is written entirely as a synopsis of the documentary with some critique tacked on to the end.
  • Expelled is slightly differently structured. ;)

I'm afraid that's all the assistance I can offer right now, Merzul (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So I decided to post one last appeal there. I don't know if I'm being helpful or disruptive, if I should fight for what I think is right or edit where my contributions are more appreciated. Quite confused, Merzul (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [10] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Your accusations

You have claimed that Dave Souza and several other editors consider my edits to the Expelled articles to be POV-pushing. Since I take Daves opinion very seriously, I have tried to track down sources for these claims of yours. I have also asked that you substantiate your accusations - given your history (having made shit up about OM), I don't trust you. You have replied to my request with silence.

Again, I am asking you to show me where it was that Dave and other unnamed editors have accused me of engaging in POV editing on the Expelled article. You claim that a respected and honest editor (and unnamed "others") believe that my edits violated NPOV. Please provide diffs or, failing that, remove your false accusations. Guettarda (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"It doesn't work that way"? What are you trying to say - that it's ok for you to make shit up because you are offended that I didn't answer your off-topic nonsense? Am I also to assume that when you say "you show good faith by answering their questions directly" that you are admitting that you are not acting in good faith, given that you have refused to address my questions?

Now I have no idea how you managed to become an admin, given that you seem to have no understanding of how Wikipedia works. I suppose it shows that the RFA system is broken. Just to let you know, it isn't ok for you to make false accusations. It appears that you are now engaging in falsehoods for a second time. Given your concern about history and reputation, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. I take it from your reply that it is safe to assume that this is the way you operate. Henceforth I shall work under the assumption that everything you say is false, until proven otherwise. I hope for your sake that you to try to break this habit. Guettarda (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been warned =0

Looks like Raul has decided to make me his next victim. Since your an admin, could you do something about it? Thanks! Saksjn (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

People have raised concerns with me (which have been reinforced by reading your talkpage) that many of the editors involved in the Expelled "discussions" are no longer seeing you as a neutral party. If you have any further problems with comments that you see as personal attacks I'd like to offer to talk to the people involved for you and avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest in administrative actions. I'm on reasonably good terms with many of the people involved, so I hope they will listen to my advice and I can help defuse any further conflict. Please don't hesitate to get in touch. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Josef Rubinstein

Actually the tag does not refer to a discussion. It encourages people to discuss it, which does not necessarily mean there's an existing discussion to join. I don't really have anything to discuss. Josef Rubenstein has edited the article. The tag speaks for itself. Doczilla STOMP! 22:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The tag remains because the COI issues still apply. I didn't design the tag. Doczilla STOMP! 03:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

All Star Superman

Thanks for the copyedit on Rags Morales. Reads a lot better now. If you get the chance I've been doing some work on All Star Superman that could use some copyedit and tidy up. Thanks! Stextc (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Gouache

Think I said the wrong episode. It was Cartman's Incredible Gift (813), where one of the detectives informs Yates that they just got a call from "Doctor Gouache" (whether "Doctor" is supposed to be his first name and he's saying his full name or just saying "Dr. Gouache", I'm unsure). Sorry for the mixup. SPscriptorium says "Dr. Kels", but I'm pretty sure I hear a G in there. --Jopasopa (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Zombie

Thanks for your addition to the Zombie article. With all the disruptive edits it's had, you might be surprised to know that yours is one of the first substantive improvements the article has had in several months. Nice work. Travisl (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea why Zombie and Zombies in popular culture are such targets for vandalism. It's a pretty constant flow, though. Perhaps there's a connection between mindless vandals and the shambling undead. Heck, maybe their vandalism also violates Wikipedia:Autobiography ;-) Thanks for helping keep an eye on it. Travisl (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wood between the Worlds

This article is completely unsourced. Do you think it meets general notability guideline? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Serenity-BetterDays-1.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sicko

Thanks for your comments. I find it best to confine discussion about articles to their respective talk pages, so I'll reply to you on Talk:Sicko. Cheers, --Ryan Delaney talk 00:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Chumble Spuzz

I was wondering if you would look into the controversy over the Chumble Spuzz article regarding an interview where the author of the Chumble Spuzz title (Ethan Nicolle) explains his stance on religion (which has a direct tie in to the reception of the title by religous audiences). There is a discussion about this on the Chumble Spuzz Talk page. The author himself has posted on the user talk page of Emperor, wondering why it was removed. Thank you, Millennium Cowboy (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Serenity comics

What do you think? Is it ready yet? -- saberwyn 23:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Where each point of information is contained (main TV series article, this article, individual comics articles) can be fought out at a later stage, hopefully improving all involved articles in the process. I'm moving it into mainspace at Serenity (comics) and adding links in a handful of appropriate places. -- saberwyn 03:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, there's been a hitch. I'll work it all out soon (I hope). -- saberwyn 04:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Another question about screening movies.

I asked another question, if you could answer it over there. - Fawn Lake (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And once again. Sorry. - Fawn Lake (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:RWHollywoodCast.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:UltimatesVol1-1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:UltimatesVol1-1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA poll

See User:Bearian/RfaPoll. Bearian (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco burrito

I disagree with your edits to San Francisco burrito. Inline attribution is appropriate when an opinion, idea, theory, or interesting observation belongs to the author cited. In this case, it doesn't, and your changes make it seem like eating a San Francisco burrito without utensils is a style recommended by the authors; It isn't. The fact that a San Francisco burrito is considered "hand food" and requires no utensils, and that the foil is used for support, is endemic to the style and is reported in many publications, and is therefore notable and relevant to the style outside of the source cited. In other words, it is common knowledge. Perhaps you forgot that the Lonely Planet is generally considered a tertiary source that merely compiles the work of others. Since I favor incorporating the edits of good-faith editors over straight reversions, I will plan on removing the attribution and adding more sources-—sources that predate the Lonely Planet Guide by many years, and add back in the information you removed. Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Who exactly is that does not recommend using utensils to eat a burrito?
Not a burrito, a San Francisco burrito. Huge difference. If the article and the sources in the article don't answer this question for you, then this needs to be made more explicit. The reason a San Francisco burrito is encased in aluminum foil, is so that it can be eaten without utensils.
Even if the book compiles sources that indeed promote this idea
It does.
this hardly holds true for every single eatery and burrito eater.
It holds true for every San Francisco burrito. Big difference. They are simply not eaten with utensils, and to do so, would require removing them from the tightly packed foil. I would be happy to explain this further in the article, so thank you for your helpful criticism. It's always good to be reminded that we are writing for a general audience who may not be familiar with the topic. Viriditas (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
San Francisco burritos are designed to be eaten with the hands, not utensils. The foil is used to keep the burrito together as you eat it with your hands. If utensils were needed, it wouldn't be wrapped in foil. There's a reason that taquerias in San Francisco have signs that say, "No tenemos tenedores". Have you ever been to a San Francisco taqueria (not a Mexican restaurant, but a taqueria)? All burritos are eaten with the hands, not forks. Sure, I guess once in a while a tourist from Minnesota will show up and unwrap the burrito and eat it with a fork, but tourists do this once and rarely make the mistake a second time. When you take the foil off, the burrito falls apart and turns into a salad. This isn't the kind of burrito you find on a plate. Viriditas (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ultimates

Actually, it is your opinion that the sales figures are important. My points were not addressed, and the vast majority of articles don't cite sales figures due to their subjective nature. After all, second for one month in 2002? Again, so? There's also the fact that several obviously less experienced editors have been reverting grammatical and style corrections without looking. I might bring in another body with some experience, who can see the difference between fancruft and fact. Asgardian (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

...And...don't issue ultimatums (pun intended). Go back and read what you said and consider the tone. Asgardian (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to take a step back. No personal attacks have been made, only comments to the effect that some editors have undone solid edits that go to style. Again, look at tone. Taking it upon yourself to say someone will be blocked is an ultimatum. As no one has been able to adequately address the argument on sales, I will canvas for other opinions. Asgardian (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Heh. If you think that comments like that are personal - which in fact only point out where editors have gone wrong - then you would be shocked by what goes happens on some pages...Asgardian (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, you certainly seem to be taking this personally, given you now resort to claiming you've been editing longer that I have (was that ever a factor?). As I said, I will consult with other Editors on the Sales issue as I believe the logic is weak. I will be guided by their judgement. Now, let's move on.

Asgardian (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, are you aware of this? I haven't looked closely at the edit history of Ultimates, but it appears to me that Asgardian has been re-deleting things that he's previously tried to delete without having acquired consensus on the talk page to do so... rst20xx (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Love your drawings

Hi, this comment has nothing to do with any article's. I just want to say that I think your sketche's on your profile are excellent, I really like them. On average how long does it take you to draw them?. I think will watch your page just so I can see more... hopefully. They are truly amazing.--Theoneintraining (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Help Check It Out

Could you maybe help out on these page with displaying references in is own section; tidy it up a bit Kelvin Martinez (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Honorific titles in popular music

I needed some help with the references so they can be better displayed on the notes. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!!! Check it Out Honorific titles in popular music with any feedback Talk:Honorific titles in popular music Kelvin Martinez (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Project Fanboy

Hi, I was wondering if you might be interested in helping me with an article I'm working on for the comic book website Project Fanboy

I've created the article here on my sandbox and was wondering if you'd be so kind as to give it a look and let me know what you think. (whether the site is notable enough for an article or not yet) All the best, Millennium Cowboy (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

On Blaspemy Challenge

"What they consider irrational" is relevant because their is no evidence a god does not exist. Beides most atheist arguments are highly irrational. Most of you guys just spew out hate speech instead of an intelligent and civilized argument.--Lord Haw Haw29 (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well first I am sorry for what I said. I do not mean to attack you, but when all you here is atheist fascists you tend to see them all in the same light. So I am sorry for what I said. On the pther part I think you wanted change "what they consider irrational" to something like "The RRS is against religion which is irrational" or something honestly I dont remember. I said that that would not be accepted since God has not been disproven.--Lord Haw Haw29 (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:8.28.07TimSaleMidtownComicsNYC.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:8.28.07TimSaleMidtownComicsNYC.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:8.28.07TimSaleMidtownComicsNYC.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. rootology (T) 22:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Mad magazine

This, & you, for {{fact}} tagging here something that's sourced there. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 02:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Pay attention. You tagged it despite there being a prefectly good source in the linked article, which you neglected to consult before tagging. Note the footnote I added, which uses it, gotten from said linked article. Not citing the article, notice. Citing the source in it.
As for the appropriateness of the summary, you're right. It tweaked me you'd tagged without looking, & I've seen cited material tagged, so I overreacted. Once. And...no, I'm not going to say it. There's no way to say it without being a dick. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 03:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
You start with a threat of blocking & expect perfect civility? Don't. You won't get it from me. "Personal attack"? Hardly. What I would have said, & haven't, might be. Don't expect more restraint than that. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 04:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Y'know what, it's not. I at no time said you'd tagged something that had a citation (I have seen it done, which twigs me.), or didn't yet. You did, however, wade through laying so many fact tags, it looked pretty excessive, like you were tagging anything you could. And I've also seen that before, too. (I don't consider you obliged to check, & if I implied so, it's not what I meant.) It looked like a bit of restraint might have been due. So yes, I overreacted. And then you start with a block threat. That is not calculated to get a civil response, & it didn't. Separated by a common language? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 04:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I won't argue that. Nor the chronology. Evidently I need to stay off touchy subjects awhile. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 04:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocking

Why do you think you are special? Why do you block other users? Who made you the internet police. You blocked my IP address, but since I'm not a gutless coward I logged in. Get a life and move out of your mothers basement. Go ahead and block me know, I know you will. CubFan7125 18:37, 21 July 2008

Project Fanboy is the one, yes

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Fanboy. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Good rvt, Ultimates

Specifics aside, it's good to see we're "ultimate"ly on the same page! Absolutely correct revert you did, IMHO. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Heavens, yes!   :-)   --Tenebrae (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WPC MOS

Dude! Let me open you up to a whole helpful world where a couple years' worth of editors and consensus have created a WikiProject: Comics (WPC) Manual of Style (MOS)! It makes things soooo much easier since all the heavy-lifting discussion, coordination with Wikipedia's overall rules, and trial-and-error experiments have all been done. (Like Wikipedia overall, of course, tweaks and policy discussion go on, but we have a foundation.)

Go to the Manual of Style for all the basics, Editorial Guidelines for the specific question about volume numbers, and Exemplars for examples of specific wordings.

Then for dessert, check out the Comics Portal, which is our face to the world!

I know I get excited sometimes, but it's so good to help a fellow project member who wants to learn. Best regards to ya, --Tenebrae (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is so very nice of you to suggest it, and another editor did nominate me once. However, being a professional journalist and author makes one a stickler for high standards, and ironically, that can tick off editors less even-tempered than you. The committee encouraged me to try again sometime, and I've been learning to be more diplomatic and politic, but on the whole I guess I'd rather try to do some good in the trenches and let the chips fall where they may.
But thank you most sincerely for the kind words. I've worked with some wonderful colleagues here, some of whom I sadly haven't seen in a while; overall, the WPC veteran editors are a great bunch. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Mad magazine

I've been told that "current" is not a good word to use in articles; the last few times I used that word in an article, it got slapped with a {{when}} template. If you feel it should be more specific, I think "as of 2008" would be better. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 21:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

My block

Hello Nightscream. Thank you for your message. I even know where this came from. I only learned recently - due to the inaccurate bot run by Yobot operated by User:Magioladitis - that "date of birth" missing goes on a different page than "year of birth missing" (which is a bit absurd and misleading, but that is just my opinion). I started putting it on the talk page once I figured out what was going on. I just have one request that I know that you may not be able to fulfill. I am actually somewhat proud of the fact that I did not have anything in my block record in my time here, in spite of a few rough encounters. Is there anyway to purge my block record so that this mistake does not show? I know that I am being a bit O/C about this and that your block and immediate unblock (with appropriate message) would show an observant person what had happened, but there are a some editors who would try to use this block - even though a mistake - against me in the future. As I said I know that you may not be able to do anything but thank you for your time in reading this. MarnetteD | Talk 09:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and for your efforts. I have read all of the communications at your post at the help desk. I thought that I remembered an AN/I thread where somone had a block purged from their log but I could be mistaken. I don't think that you need to do anything else so I'll just close by saying cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 17:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The Island

Hey thanks for the info!!! here is the picture where they show everyone on the show: http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg99/freddy_pxndx/TheIsland.jpg keep in touch... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis1990 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Brooklyn

There are several sources that say they are filming in Red Hook including various newspapers.74.196.134.34 (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks

Thank you. I have been reminded and this happened a while ago and they werent the nicest people ever. So I once again apologize and thank you for reminding me. Rwhollywoodfan (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Neil Forrester's tongue

It feels weird to be challenging such an obscure point, but I think it's important...

I appreciate the link you've found that says his tongue was "bitten half off", but I think the author has it wrong or has exaggerated for dramatic effect. If his tongue had indeed been bitten off it would have been almost (if not entirely) impossible for it to be re-attached. You might remember that this was a point made by Neil's own dentist at the time. To suggest that a severed tongue was surgically re-attached would be to suggest that medical miracle took place during an episode of The Real World...and if that had been the case, I'm sure the producers would made more of it! Labcoat (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply on my User page. We need to be realistic about it. There is simply no way that Neil's tongue (one of the most complicated and sensitive of human organs) was bitten half off, spat out, and then miraculously re-attached. Indeed, during the subsequent episodes, Neil's dentist (or maybe it was doctor?) clearly advises him that he is lucky that the bite wasn't very deep - "...any deeper and it would have turned black and fallen off". The wording should be changed accordingly. Your thoughts, please. Labcoat (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have a complete set of all the episodes. My familiarity with RW London borders on the embarassing (hence my ability to issue verbatim quotes on demand, like the one above). Labcoat (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Cheers for the reply. Yep, I'm in my 30s and my specialist subject is RW seasons NY - Seattle. Can we just change the wording re Neil's tongue? The process of citing the episode sounds quite involved and I can't imagine anyone taking issue with such an obscure point. Labcoat (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Dejah Thoris worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TestEditBot (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic

Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a reminder that the WikiNYC Picnic is tomorrow (August 24) from 2 PM to 8 PM. If you plan on being lost, be sure to come ahead of time! To clarify, the picnic will be taking place within or adjacent to the Picnic House in Prospect Park, Brooklyn. I hope to see you there! --harej 03:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

I fail to see how your explanation for the reverting re: the Mackenzie Calhoun page applies. Star Trek takes place in the future. It's fictional medicine is far advanced. The scar could be removed in seconds, but it is not, therefore he has chosen to keep it. Lots42 (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd have to disagree with you (politely). Many of the Calhoun books mention this and the extent of Star Trek medicine has been demonstrated dozens and dozens of times. Lots42 (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I went to the episode you linked to and found no mention of any medical technological levels. Feel free to correct me or link to something else. As for the rest of your comment, that is what I was trying to make clear; I wil attempt to find one of the books mentioning Calhoun's desire to keep the scar. I believe that will be a sufficent enough link, considering Calhoun has only appeared in the novels and one graphic novel. Lots42 (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
??? The three examples you gave me don't actually bolster your opinion. We have a crazy Cardassian, a proud Klingon, who like Calhoun, chooses not to revert, and some people off screen who for all we know were on their way to Sickbay to get scars reverted. Lots42 (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Um, no, we DO know the scar can be removed but Mac chooses not to, because it is said several times in many novels. I will look for one of these novels in order to cite it, I do not have access to them at the moment. Lots42 (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove

Do not remove my talkpage comments, as you did here [11] Swampfire (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Real World: Brooklyn

Yeah I wrote that and as far as I know there was no valid reason to delete what i wrote in the 1st place. It was credible info. There was no reason to delete it. Thanks. Rwhollywoodfan (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Take it easy. I put the quote in there because it was relevent information. You did not have to remove it. You had no reason to do that. You don't need to block me. But like I said before, there was NO REASON TO REMOVE IT! Thanks.Rwhollywoodfan (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I didn't see that. My sincere apologies. Thanks for the help. Rwhollywoodfan (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC

Information on RW Brooklyn

Filming already started for almost 3 weeks now so please change it to "Filming for the season began August 2008" if you will. There are many pictures to proove it. And also all over Vevmo.com74.196.134.34 (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

CBG in brackets

Thanks. I should have thought of that. :-) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Rags Morales

RE : Morales personal life. That's weird I thought the citation had the information where he was divorced twice.

Anyway it's in the below link : http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=112859

Do you think it's worth inclusion in his article? Stextc (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Equus

I updated the infobox and checked through the article using the site for the purposes of WP:V. The problem with just relying on primary sources is that you can miss things which is why we ask for independent third party sources just as back-up really. Not foolproof, obviously, but if there had have been a disparity I'd have investigated further.

I'm also looking around for out of universe material (especially on character creation), as the article needs it, but can't find any. (Emperor (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

All edits that move things forward can be considered as "constructing" an article. In the end I really don't care and if you don't like it where it is, then move it. (Emperor (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC))
Whatever you think is the best, after all edits are always provisional and as long as the article isn't going backwards then I don't mind.
I have also had a good look around and not found much else on the character other than someone in an article on Countdown which described him as Wolverine meets Bane, which isn't that useful but I must admit to think "retractable claws? Wolverine?" but that doesn't mean that is where the idea came from, it is just there isn't much from the creators on the character design. Pity, but I'll keep an eye out. (Emperor (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

Jasmin St Claire

I have updated the talk page with the verifiable info —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumpy6639 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ultimates

I'll delete it every time when that badly written. Just do the rewrite as I requested and all will be fine. Asgardian (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting information that is not to Wiki-standards is fine. As I said before, just rewrite it. I was going to do it anyway. But please don't make silly threats. Let's just get on with the business of editing. Asgardian (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your block of Asgardian

Can you talk me through your block of Asgardian? I don't quite see what the block was for, so I'd appreciate being walked through it since I must be missing something. Ta. Hiding T 09:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your input regarding Asgardian's block. I left a message in the discussion on Daniel's Talk Page. Nightscream (talk) 06:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've read that, and the discussion at User talk:Hiding as well. And have commented at the latter. - jc37 09:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm getting confused. What was the block of Asgardian for in the first place? The stated reason is persistently removing material, but if the only examples we have are the three edits you gave me, that's not persistent and it isn't a breach of policy; he's allowed to remove unsourced material. You're right, it doesn't mean he should, but he shouldn't get blocked for it. Whether a previous involvement with a user precludes you from making a block is a hard one. I had this issue a while ago at Pat Lee, and because I'd edited the article, even though it was to revert BLP violating edits, it meant I had become involved. I don't really know how it works, but I think a rule of thumb on Wikipedia is that you don't block someone who makes personal attacks against you. Did you check with Daniel Case before or after the block? With regards tem[;ates. no, there are certainly two ways of looking at it. All I know is they wind me up when they appear on my talk page; I then put myself in the shoes of the other person and try and avoid them if I can. Asgardian is a tricky customer to handle, I'll grant you that. If you're unaware of his arbitration parole, it doesn't matter, because he hasn't breached it here anyway. He has to make edit summaries and discuss reverts, which he appears to be doing. Tell truth, it may have expired. But look, down to the nitty gritty, is this the first contact you have with Asgardian over the issues which led to the block? [12]. I think I'm seeing light at the end of the tunnel here. Hiding T 22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not getting it. It looks to me like an editorial dispute. Looking at Ultron, he's removed a ref to Annihilation Conquest #1, is that still needed in his rewrite? He's removed something sourced from an interview at newsarama, again that's allowed under policy, and he has generally tidied up various instances of plot summary. What policy is he breaching here? Looking at Vision he's removed speculation and moved what he feels is too much detail, again not against any specific policy. And looking at Bi-Beast, he removed an unsubstantiated claim, which means exactly the same thing as unsourced, and per policy the onus is not on Asgardian to substantiate it. Per policy, Asgardian can remove it, it says so at WP:V. You're right in that he doesn;t have to, and that to some it is preferable to add a fact tag, but there is no policy which says removing unsourced or unsubstantiated material is wrong. That's a violation of policy. And again, he tweaked and copy-edited. He's allowed to do all of that. And then all I can see happen next is that you post this message on his talk page, [13].
Look, I'm not trying to bust your chops on this, it just looks to me like it could have been handled better. If your dispute with Asgardian is on an editorial level, which it looks to me like it was, then I don't feel you should have blocked Asgardian. He hasn't committed vandalism, which is the reason posted to his talk page, he isn't "persistently" removing "valid material", because the stuff he is doing falls under editorial remit and if he is reacting in a non-constructive manner, you should generally get another admin to wade in. Look, I'm only here because Jc asked me to look into it. I don't feel it was the best block in the world, but these things happen. I recall I made a bit of an idiot of myself with you once a long time ago. I've pretty much pledged not to block Asgardian again after events in April and before. If I feel he needs blocking, my thinking is I'll go post at WP:AN and get a second opinion. Maybe that's a path you need to take. I don't know. It's your call. Looking at your block log, it is mostly ip's and new accounts, so I think this is the first time you've blocked an established user. I'm not going to sit here and say Asgardian is perfect, but I think we all agree he has come a long way since he started. Mind, so have all of us. I don't doubt you were doing what you thought was the right thing to do. All anyone can ask is that we each do our best. Hiding T 08:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I've made an idiot of myself with too many people too many times to remember them all, but I'm fairly sure our paths must have crossed one time or another. Weren't you involved in the whole T-Man saga or do I have you confused with someone else? I think we seem to be agreeing that Asgardian is terrible at communicating and a little too insistent on his preferred version. What I'm looking to prod now is, given you've tweaked Ultron to include material you would prefer in, would you now say you're involved in the article? And would that prevent any further blocks around this issue? I think we're pretty much on the same page. As to the word vandal, the block reason in the template states "continued removal", but the word "removal" links to Wikipedia:Vandalism, so that's why I was saying the reason indicates vandalism. I think if we can agree on some particular points, I think we may be done. Asgardian tends to copy-edit and clean-up articles, and that involves aesthetic considerations and reliance on WP:V and so on. That's allowed, and whilst there are ways of doing this that are better than others, none of them are not allowed. When there's a dispute over what to include, consensus and our policies dictate what we do, with editors discussing. This is where problems with Asgardian start. What we have to try and work out is how to move forwards from that position. My feeling is that one should just be frank, firm, but courteous with Asgardian, something like, "you removed this piece of text which I feel adds to the article and the reader's understanding. I think it should be in the article, as such I have restored it. We shouldn't edit war over this, so the only other way to sort this out is to discuss it. If you have serious issues with the text, let's discuss them. Neither of us owns the article, so if we can't sort this out between us, I think we should involve other people." It's a way forwards, and how Asgardian responds is up to him, but there are rules of engagement on Wikipedia as I have made clear to him. Best, Hiding T 12:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Small thing w/ All-Star Bats #10...

It was published, and, IIUC, did actualy get to comic shops before DC recalled it for pulping and reprinting.

See:

http://search.ebay.ca/All-Star-Batman-10_Collectables_W0QQcatrefZC5QQdfspZ1QQfclZ3QQfromZR7QQfrppZ50QQfsooZ1QQfsopZ1QQnojsprZyQQpfidZ0QQsacatZ1QQsofindtypeZ0QQsofocusZbs (eBay Canada) http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_enCA277CA277&q=all%2dstar+batman+and+robin+10 http://newsarama.com/comics/090811-ASBR10eBay.html http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/13260.html http://wednesdayshaul.com/wordpress/2008/09/08/dcs-pulping-of-comics-continues-with-all-star-batman-robin-10/ http://comixster.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/all-star-batman-and-robin-10-recalled-due-to-cuss-words-in-the-comic/

And so on...

So "as Issue 10 has not yet been published" is not 100% accurate... It came out, DC wanted it back but didn't get'em all, so some have access to it. J Greb (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a biggie... I've got a feeling most LCS played fair by DC. The eBay stuff is the exceptions. IIUC DC has moved the "street date" to next Wednesday, so that may be a fairer note for an edit summary. - J Greb (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
"Local Comics Shop(s)"... though "Seller(s)" is probably just as valid. - J Greb (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Asgardian

Thanks for the heads-up. Perhaps I'm missing something, but so far (since his block), I see a bold edit by him. I see his post on the talk page (which coincided with his edits). I see the partial reversion by you. What would you presume the "next step" would be, if you were neutrally watching this? - jc37 08:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Emperor is making some valid points about discussion. For now, I think I'll defer to his experience/wisdom in how you (plural - you and Asgardian, and potentially others) might engage in discussion together. As an aside, one thing I also noticed was that (this time at least) Asgardian made his changes in several edits rather than one overall "big" edit, which was another concern of the past. - jc37 22:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The "aside" I mentioned above, was more a note about previous concerns. (Which is why it was an "aside" : ) - jc37 23:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note too. I agree that his edit summarise are inadequate/inaccurate [14], [15] and [16] but he is discussing the edits on the talk page (which must surely count as an attempt to "solicit discussion"). I'd suggest trying to engage him there - if you can make a good argument for putting material back then that seems the best way to move forward. (Emperor (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

Problem is that if he is at least making some effort to communicate and you aren't prepared to then things are obviously not going to get any better. He is rarely in blatant violation of guidelines, so it can get frustrating as it comes down to a matter of opinion, but you have to try and see if you can thrash out your differences with him (we can't do that for you if it really just comes down to your opinion vs his) and if there is still an impasse then we can try and thrash things out on the Comics Project talk page and see if we can't come up with a solution. (Emperor (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC))
Problem is that if you don't even try he can point at things like the talk page there to show he has made an effort and it will look like you are in the wrong, which is going to make it more difficult to sort this all out. (Emperor (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC))
Well it has to be worth a try. Asgardian must realise that there is a finite limit to the number of times we go around the block on this issue and, believe me, there have been improvements over the years and he is prepared to listen to reason. We'll all have to assume good faith and see where it takes us. (Emperor (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC))

And to clarify, my preference is unification of discussion, deference, and politeness. If you look more closely at my edit history, you may find that actually I don't "keep everyone else's" displayed on my talk page. I mostly leave appreciated "gifts" (like Barnstars and thank yous), since that seems polite. And also multi-person discussions, since the proper unification location would seem to be my talk page in those cases. Else I defer to the other person.

For example, look at your discussion with Hiding. Though I've attempted to add his responses to the discussion, imagine trying to read that without it being unified, especially with the other comments of the other people.

And the history noting that someone commented on my talk page is there in my page history. In most cases, one merely needs to go to that person's talk page (or archive thereof) for the full discussion.

(There's a longer version of my reasons for this, but that's the basics.) - jc37 23:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And now you've removed your comments, which removes context. But it's your talk page, I suppose. - jc37 01:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the continuity of the page is "difficult to read". Threading/indentation, and timestamps make it all too clear, I would presume?
And there are several ways in which editors discuss/format. (You've apparently not run across "talk page rules" notices yet? I've personally found that most (though not all, by any means) long-time editors prefer unified discussion of one kind or other.)
That said, as I noted above, do as you will, I suppose (per WP:TALK). - jc37 01:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, threading is done on user talk page just as posts are threaded on an article talk page, or any other discussion page.

And no, I was speaking of something else. See User talk:Horologium for one such example. Note, of course, that such "rules" are voluntary, and are merely guides to help other editors understand how the user may respond.

Incidentally, at this point, I would typically split this off-topic discussion to its own thread. (And will momentarily, which you are, of course, free to revert.) - jc37 03:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If you do this, could it be done with a bit more care? Because one edit [17] removed my previous two replies here and, while clearly accidental, it could be taken the wrong way by some (as it is considered poor etiquette, at best, to remove good faith edits on someone else's talk page). (Emperor (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC))

Agreed, and my apologies for the accidental removal.
In any case, I think I'm done with this "discussion" concerning talk page formatting, as it appears to be to a point where I no longer feel that clarification is being requested. - jc37 04:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note - they are two of the 4 or 5 things that seem to reoccur a lot (which could be said to boil down to an overly strict reading of the guidelines). I've left a note on the Black Bolt talk page and already had both that and Ultron on my watchlist so was keeping abreast of things. I'm afraid I've had little success elsewhere and am unsure how effective I've been really (although I'm not prepared to throw the towel in!!) but jc37 is on point on this one so perhaps he might have some clever ideas (he has the page on his watchlist so I assume will drop in). (Emperor (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC))
It might be better to recuse yourself making the last call on that as you are actively engaged in these content disputes - I know, after getting more involved in trying to help out, I feel the decision should be left to a third party (either a trusted one within the Comics Project like Hiding or jc37 - sorry guys but I thought I should name names ;) ) or we can ask an unconnected third party to look over the edits. As he isn't running a horse and cart through the guidelines (sometimes it can even be classed as sticking to the words of the guideline and not the spirit, other times the guidelines don't support his statements - but rarely anything that is a blatant violation) it could be tricky to prove definitively but in the end it should give a result that is acceptable to most people. (Emperor (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC))
Well there are often good grounds for removing content and even deleting articles (WP:CRYSTALBALL is one that comes up quite a bit and there is clearly a grey area between the ball getting rolling before the actual issues launch and having it in paper - however, the guidelines do state criteria that allow for an early inclusion and if you can tick the boxes it is usually fine). Hiding and jc37 do have this page on their watchlists, I assume, but I'll drop them a note anyway. (Emperor (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC))
(Cross-posting)
I was watching this yesterday, but at that time "discussion" was just starting.
I have no opinion on the current disputes except:
  • (again) discussion with a goal for determining consensus should happen, per WP:BRD, and
  • no, based on the discussion last time, and the edits I see now, Nightscream is not an uninvolved admin, per WP:ADMIN (direct link seems to be WP:UNINVOLVED). Hiding tried to politely help Nightscream understand their involvement last time. That said, if Nightscream disputes this, I will post a notice to WP:AN (with supportive links) and see how others feel as well. (Though we already have Emperor, Hiding, and myself. How many admins should it require?) - jc37 22:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of how my administrative status is viewed, which is why I tried to talk to Asgardian, as per Emperor's requests. As I tried to explain to Emperor on his Talk Page, and other Talk Pages, I've attempted to speak with Asgardian, but Asgardian has largely ignored me, has responded only sporadically to my posts, usually preferring to revert my edits, without discussion, and without citing policies (except for those he makes up), and when I respond to his arguments by pointing out how actual policy/guidelines do not support his position, he again ignores me by repeating the same original statement, and not directly addressing my rebuttal of it. Nightscream (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Before I say anything else, I want to try to clarify something:
  • "I am aware of how my administrative status is viewed..."
I sincerely hope the you understand that the adjoing phrase is: "...in this situation". And to further clarfy: I might re-write the sentence to be: "I am aware of how my usage of administrative tools may be viewed as inappropriate in this situation." - Or something similar. In how I understand it, typically, by joining in the content discussion, you become "just another editor" in most cases. (There are WP:IAR exceptions, obviously. But atm, even if I am discounted, I don't think that this situation has a lack of administrative oversight : )
But what I really want to make abundantly clear (speaking for myself at least) - None of this has anything to do with how I may view you as an admin. Honestly, I don't recall ever encountering you prior to this (I may have, but then I encounter a lot of people : )
Anyway, back to your comments, I am empathetic to your frustrations in communication with Asgardian. As you have discovered, this isn't something new, but I (and others) sincerely feel that he's improving. This may or may not help your frustration level, but it's at least something to give us hope for the future. (He really does seem to be "getting better" about this.)
And finally, if, for whatever reason, you're uncomfortable dropping me a note concerning this or future situations, I am fairly certain that Hiding, J Greb, Emperor (who are all fairly closely acquainted with the past situations), and even potentially others, would all presumably be happy to help however they can, if they can.
I hope this helps clarify.
(Incidentally, please note that this is the first thing I've read since signing in.) - jc37 05:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that qualifier was implied in terms of what I intended when I wrote that. And no, I never got the sense that your view of me was in issue. I genuinely appreciate your participation, since a better consensus can be reached the more that others, esp. admins, chime in, and I don't want you stop doing so. I just hope that you would address the specific points being addressed, and not just in regards to the edits, but the issue of behavior. (The one thing I'd wish you'd change is retaining and archive your TP threads instead of deleting them, as per policy, so that there is a cohesive, continuity-based record of them.)
As far as Asgardian, while I genuinely admire the depth and detail of his valid edits--the trimming, the placing of sources, the removing of POV content, and think he would be an invaluable asset to WP if he confined himself to these areas, I'm sorry, but I do not see improvement with regard to his adherence to policy or in how he interacts with others. This isn't blind dissent either, I'm pointing directly to the examples of his behavior that I have listed on his, Emperor's, and the Black Bolt Talk Page, which I'm sorry, is inexcusable, and identical to his behavior to date. Nightscream (talk) 05:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that an assertion (about whether particular edits follow a particular guideline, or not) can be subjective, and may be a matter of each person's interpretation or POV. And when two (or more) editors disagree on how the guidelines on content may apply, they should discuss it if they wish to achieve resolution.
And I might note that nearly every editor (that I can think of atm) who prunes content, typically faces similar adversarial responses. Asgardian just has baggage from past discussions (and arbcom restrictions), and isn't communicating as well as he might (and at times comes off a bit superciliously). These things are not helping him, to be sure.
But he's using edit summaries now. He's cut down dramatically on large whole-page edits. These are positive changes.
Remember, this is actually more than we require of other editors. Edit summaries are greatly preferred, but not required. And anyone may edit a page as he was. But at that time, his edits were just too controversial for some editors, and his unwillingness (then) to discuss, led to eventual sanctions and restrictions.
What issue(s) do you have with his behaviour that is outside of a dispute over content?
Note that I've just recently warned him regarding his not indicating in his edit summaries what the edits actually are. Edits which may appear to be subterfuge may be inapproriate per his restrictions.
(Also, after my previous attempt, I am dubious of whether a discussion concerning talk page preferences, and whether or not they are policy (which they're not) is likely to be a productive one between us. Per policy, you are essentially free to refactor placement of my comments, as long as it doesn't become disruptive, and does not present them in a way which might misconvey my intent, or meaning, etc.) - jc37 06:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It can only be subjective if both parties state cite the policy in question, and enter into a discussion in which they not only state their position, but respond directly to each other's counterarguments. Asgardian is not doing this. He does not cite policy, he makes declarations by fiat that imply some guideline or discussion, and largely ignores attempts at discussion, with sporadic exceptions. Often when he does discuss things, he ignores the counterarguments made by someone, by just repeating his position over and over. How many times now, for example, did I explain to him that the word "speculation" does not mean what he uses it to mean, and provide my reasoning as to why certain information does not fail CRYSTAL, only for him to simply ignore this, and repeat the assertion that it does? I posted this on his Talk Page. he never responded to it, but repeated his position on the Black Bolt Talk Page. I reposted the same counterreasoning regarding CRYSTAL. He then repeated the notion again that it violated CRYSTAL. Just look at his Talk Page, Emperor's Talk Page, and the Black Bolt Talk Page (as well as the edit histories of Black Bolt and Ultron for details evidence of this behavior. As for Edit Summaries, I don't recall saying anything about them, but J Greb has admonished him on his Talk Page for using a deceptive one. As for whole-page edits, I see no problem with them, as long as the edits are valid, and done in good faith. Nightscream (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"It can only be subjective if both parties state cite the policy in question, and enter into a discussion in which they not only state their position, but respond directly to each other's counterarguments."
Actually, an interpretation can be subjective even if it's only one person espousing the interpretation.
As I said before, I'm staying neutral to the content of the discussion. Emperor has kindly accepted my request to help mentor Asgardian, and is also in the discussion you mention.
A fair chunk of the rest would seem to be you wanting more substance over style; of how he should be more communicative; of wanting more direct proof to back up his assertions. That may be a fair request. But (while it may be frustrating) not meeting that request isn't a blockable offense. The worst that providing style over substance may do is to possibly cause that person's arguments to be giving less weight by whomever determines consensus/closes the discussion.
I think that if these are your concerns, then the best thing you can and should do is to continually ask for clarification. Ask for the "proof" that you're looking for. Noting, of course that it should be remembered that the policies and guidelines that you're both interpreting/espousing are intended to be a reflection of common practice and prior consensus, and in most cases, has little to do with whatever the state may be of the "codified text" on some page. (I point this out, as it's a common misconception.)
When I earlier asked about behaviour, I was asking about disruptive behaviour. My apologies for not being clearer.
And finally, I just would like to reiterate, while I am happy to help give advice on etiquette, and offer my general thoughts on policy and the interpretation thereof, I'm simply not going to join in on the content discussion. I am staying neutral to that. To put it another way, I'm not mediating the content dispute. (Though I think you both could do a lot worse than to ask Emperor to mediate for you.) I'm simply acting as a neutral observer to make sure that the discussion does not become disruptive (through things like edit warring, personal attacks, etc.), and that Asgardian stays within the restrictions that have been placed upon him.
I've offered you both some advice as to how to better communicate with each other. I hope it helps, but as anything, it's merely advice, and should be seen as such.
In all, I hope this helps. - jc37 09:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Jc, I'm sorry, but it doesn't appear that you're listening to what I've been saying. You talk about the subjectivity of one person interpreting policy, about continually asking for clarification, and better communicating, even though I've made it clear that Asgardian refuses requests to do so. How can one communicate with him if he refuses to engage in discussion? I didn't say anything about "style over substance", and have no idea what you mean. I have no problem with arguments being made that my interpretation is subjective, wrong, or doesn't fit the given situation best. My point is that Asgardian isn't making any, except in the most cursory or sporadic manner, and doesn't respond to rebuttals. Didn't you read this above? And yes, blanking page content, without citing a valid rationale, and without discussing it with someone else, continuing to revert it while a discussion is ongoing, and making personal comments about another user/admin, is most certainly disruptive behavior, and when the user refuses to cease or even talk about it when attempts to made to do so, blocking is indeed a valid recourse. Emperor and J Greb have been admonishing him of late too, so it's not like it's just me. If you're mentoring him, then you should educate him on these points. Nightscream (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm thinking that you're not understanding my comments. I'm not sure how to better explain, so I'll try to re-explain.
My role in this: a neutral observer.
I'm not specifically a mentor, or mediator in this.
(And while you don't seem to understand the warning I gave Asgardian, it seems fairly clear that he did.)
"blanking page content, without citing a valid rationale" - he was warned concerning that, though I will note that any other editor would be allowed to boldly make such an edit. AFAIK, that's not normally a blockable offense.
"continuing to revert it while a discussion is ongoing" - now that is indeed a problem (And he was blocked for 48 hours for that). But then, someone else had to be also reverting with him. Which means it could be a question of whether blocking (one or both editors) or page protection is more appropriate.
"making personal comments about another user/admin" - being an admin has absolutely no bearing on whether comments towards you are appropriate or not. If you don't like the tone or content of someone's comments, finding them to be uncivil, ask them to stop. If they don't, find another admin to investigate (presuming one osn't already present) and if appropriate, the commenter may be "helped" to cease. In this case, I've spoken to him already about his words and tone, and he has acquiesced to my request.
"when the user refuses to [...] even talk about it when attempts to made to do so" - nope, you can't force someone to talk with you. That said, if they willfully exclude themselves from a discussion, then what they may have hoped to achieve may not be achieved. But no, it's in no way a blockable offence. (I commented out "to cease, or" because that's already been explained.)
One other note, blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive. So try to accept that actions in the past are in the past. He's been blocked for certain things, he's agreed to try to not intentionally repeat the disruptive actions of the past.
I think at this point, the best advice I could give is to move forward, and as good Wikipedians in the spirit of WikiLove, presume good faith of each other and start anew.
I see him listed in the recent edit history of the talk page in question. If you're not happy with the quality of substance of his comments/responses, ask him to clarify.
If you're still not understanding, I'll be happy to try to clarify again. Though as an option, I can ask another editor (admin or otherwise) to read my comments and attempt to convey them, if it's my phrasing that's somehow confusing. - jc37 16:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"My role in this: a neutral observer. I'm not specifically a mentor, or mediator in this." I'm not sure why you keep repeating this, as I said or implied otherwise (that I'm aware of).

"And while you don't seem to understand the warning I gave Asgardian, it seems fairly clear that he did." I read and understood your warning to Asgardian. If you can explain what I said that indicates otherwise, please do so.

"he was warned concerning that, though I will note that any other editor would be allowed to boldly make such an edit. AFAIK, that's not normally a blockable offense." Blanking page valid page content, without a valid rationale (or using a deceptive or euphemistic one), against policy, and without responding to others who ask to discuss it with you, has nothing to do with "boldness". That's reckless editing, which the Boldness Policy page warns against. If Asgardian has a valid rationale to delete material, cites it, and discusses it in the interests of transparency, that's fine. But if the deleted information is valid, no rationale is given, and repeated attempts to communicate and warnings are ignored or met with hostile behavior, yes, that is disruptive behavior, and is indeed grounds for blocking. It was why he was blocked the last time, and that block was upheld. While some expressed discomfort with my being the one who did the blocking (which I responded to by alerting you of this newest situation), no one, that I recall or know of, contested the block or its legitimacy other than Asgardian. There was one instance in which Asgardian cited the guideline about volume numbers to me, and I accepted this, but this is the exception. He seems dead set on ignoring me when I refute his statements, as with his citation of CRYSTAL.

I also find this statement a bit contradictory: He was warned about something that you claim would be okay if any other editor did it? Do I take it to you mean that you disagree with the warning? If so, why did you warn him about this yourself, and why mention it now, as if to indicate that you support it?

"now that is indeed a problem (And he was blocked for 48 hours for that). But then, someone else had to be also reverting with him." When was he blocked for 48 hours? The only such block I see on his page was the upholding of his last block, and that was for making personal attacks. No mention of editing during an ongoing discussion was made, as he could not have edited anyway when blocked (unless his IP wasn't blocked). For my part, I have not been reverting his edits during this discussion.

"being an admin has absolutely no bearing on whether comments towards you are appropriate or not." I did not say or imply that being an admin has any bearing on whether comments towards them are appropriate or not. If you prefer that we exclusively use the word "user", and not "admin", we can do that, but please do not read into my inclusiveness or indecisiveness in word choice as anything other than that.

"nope, you can't force someone to talk with you." Wikipedia requires editors in a dispute to communicate. That has nothing to do with "forcing" someone to talk. Requiring something and "forcing" it are not the same thing. And yes, refusing to talk, at least as a component of the overall problem, can contribute to blocking as a necessary recourse, as aforementioned. How would ignoring repeated attempts at discussion and warnings not lead one to conclude that blocking might be needed? If a question arises as to whether a given edit or set of edits are bold or disruptive, and the editor refuses to discuss it, and he/she continues such activities, what would you prescribe instead? That the editor simply go on deleting information that others believe is valid, without oversight?

"blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive. So try to accept that actions in the past are in the past. He's been blocked for certain things, he's agreed to try to not intentionally repeat the disruptive actions of the past." If he has agreed not to repeat his disruptive actions, then I'd say that he has not lived up to that agreement, as his current actions are the same as before (this despite the fact that you admit his prior actions were disruptive, but that his current behavior is not). Yes, they are preventative. I never said or implied that blocks were punitive.

"I think at this point, the best advice I could give is to move forward, and......start anew." We have already "started anew", as I heeded Emperor's request to me to try and engage him in conversation, and as I have told you and him repeatedly, Asgardian ignores me. You say that I should ask him to clarify. If you're a neutral observer, you'd read the Talk Page, instead of just its Edit History, and you'd have seen that I already asked him to do this, many times, on that page and on his own Talk Page, and he has ignored me. The most recent time was yesterday, and he has continued editing since then, without responding to me, so I'm a bit perplexed by this suggestion of yours. This doesn't seem to be an issue of "understanding" on my part, a lack of acknowledgment on your part of what I've already said. Can you explain why you'd keep repeating the suggestion that I do what I already informed you I had done many times already? Can you explain why you restricted yourself to the History of that Talk Page instead of reading it, if you're an observer?

"If you're still not understanding, I'll be happy to try to clarify again. Though as an option, I can ask another editor (admin or otherwise) to read my comments and attempt to convey them, if it's my phrasing that's somehow confusing." You have not established that I have exhibited any lack of understanding in the first place, and I wonder if this condescending comment, along with the other fallacies in your post, reveals whether are are truly as objective as you claim. If this is truly the most constructive, "neutral" talk you can offer, I don't think any more needs to be said between you and I. I will be contacting other administrators regarding this. Thank you for your time. Nightscream (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll respond to that last, first. It wasn't intending to be condescending in any way. I was sincerely concerned that what I was attempting to convey was (for some unknown reason) not being conveyed. The best way I know how to resolve that is to see if someone else can act as "interpreter" and perhaps help explain more clearly.
  • And please feel free to contact other admins. I strongly feel that the "more eyes", the better.
  • Now to your other comments - in respective order:
  • I keep "repeating" it because it seems to me that you've attempted several times to draw me into the content discussion. I'm not sure that this is intentional on your part, but I felt that it was something worth clarifying, just in case.
  • It was a reference to how you keep mentioning how Emperor and others have concerns about Asgardian's recent edits. Due to that, it appeared that you were unaware of either that he was warned, or the implications of the warning.
  • Ok, this has several parts.
First, the removal of a section of text isn't the "blanking a page" that you're looking for. "Blanking a page" means that a "significant portion" of the article is removed. Please read WP:VANDAL. From what I can see, you are and were doing several things specifically listed as what not to do.
And, again, you can't force someone to talk with you, or even force someone to discuss their edits. You simply cannot block someone for refusing to discuss. (Unless a previous restriction has been placed - we'll get back to that) What an admin can do is if the person refuses to discuss for a significant legnth of time (and not when they are involved in the discussion), is revert the edits. If the editor continues to repeat such edits, to the point of disruption (which is a question of discernment, obviously), then the editor may be blocked for the continued (unexplained, and potentially disruptive) edits.
And my suggestions were and are suggestions to "keep trying". If you don't understand him, if you don't like how his comments are presented, if you don't feel that he's responded that way you would like, but you are still interested in resolution of the situation: keep trying. Other additional options are to request comment from others, such as by placing a note at the WP:VP, or a related WikiProject. (I presume that would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics in this case.)
I'll address his "previous block" below.
And the reason that I warned him for something that wouldn't normally be a blockable offense is that he has been instructed to provide better edit summaries for his edits. So he has a "prior restriction". I'm fairly certain that he knows and understands this. And though I've attempted to convey this to you before, perhaps now you understand more clearly per this context.
  • In looking back over the block, I see that it was claimed to be for civility. In my discussion with DC, when I suggested that it be reduced to 48 hours, my intention (which is my fault for not making clear) was for the edit warring (as well as the inappropriate comments in the unblock request). And in particular: "However, he's still doing large mass edits in a single edit (and has been now for awhile, I note in his edit history), which he's supposed to try to avoid." - A specific case of "repeated edits" which he has been warned to not do. Hence why the 48 hour block was quite appropriate. While my intent was due to repeated violations of his arbcom restrictions, DC was focused on the civility issues. (The civility issue would have only been a 24 hour block, but DC was merely increasing your initial block length.) So 24 (arb) + 24 (civ) = 48. I clarified it on Asgardian's talk page (over several subsequent edits). And should it be necessary, his next block in this situation (per previous advice from User:Taxman) should be (at least) 72 hours.
  • And my apologies if I have misinterpreted your usage of "admin" in this discussion. As there is the possibility that there is a "communication breakdown" (a perceived potential lack of understanding between us), I've been attempting to be as concrete in interpretation of comments as possible.
  • "Wikipedia requires editors in a dispute to communicate." - No it doesn't. There is simply no requirement anywhere that an editor must discuss their edits. Though if they choose to not, their edits will likely be reverted per WP:BRD. And if they choose to not engage in the "D" portion, then it's fairly likely that their edits will not be re-inserted. If they then choose to try to re-insert (revert) without further discussion, they may be blocked, though not for the lack of discussion, but for taking the action (the reversion). A general rule of thumb: An editor is blocked for an inappropriate action. There are very rare situations (I can't think of any atm) in which an editor may be blocked for not taking an action (i.e. for not editing).
  • Again, this was merely a suggestion to try to "start fresh". Sort of a: "Ok, he's been blocked, let's move on."
  • And again, the suggestion is to "start fresh". And he doesn't seem to be ingoring you. (As I note on this talk page.) And I didn't restrict myself. That was merely a way to point to evidence to the contrary. But since the point (at that point anyway) was a question of whether he had responded at all, I was noting quantity, while attempting to avoid commenting on the "substance" of the comments. (As substance didn't seem necessarily relevant to that specific question.)
  • And I already responded to your last points. Though I will actually go further, and endorse a posting to WP:AN if you feel that additional eyes are warranted.
  • I'd like to suggest one other thing. However, my concern in suggesting is that, in reading the "tone" of several of your responses to me, I'm getting the sense that you're not taking my suggestions in the light in which they are offered. That said, I sincerely think I'd be remiss if I didn't offer you the suggestion.
If you would like to go into an admin mentorship program, I would happily endorse. There are some excellent admins who know the policies, guidelines, process, and the ins and outs of avoiding the accidental pitfalls with the tools. I personally had the happy fortune to have quite a few long-time admins who commonly associated with me even prior to my becoming an admin. And I think that their help and support was invaluable. (For example, User:Hiding coached me through my first block.) And I sincerely think you could similarly benefit.

Latest long message

I did get this and I will look into it. God, it's complicated. Daniel Case (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note with Emperor and will give him some time to respond in the event he may have changed his mind. If not, I'll put the block through in a couple of hours. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

IP accounts

Hello, I've been frustrated lately with long-term IP accounts refusing to sign-in (even though they're not required to) at talk: British Isles and talk:Republic of Ireland. Feel free to delete my posting at the IP-in-questions talk-page. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed my whole posting. IPs should be forced to register, after being on Wikipedia for 1-month (IMHO). GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect some long-term IPs are banned registered users, getting around their blocks. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

To be on the safe side, I'll ignore them (until they sign-in). GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fraser Institute

The Fraser Institute makes no bones about its conservatism or its opposition to Canada's medicare system. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link that should clear things up: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/fraserinstitute/ Spoonkymonkey (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article. It's from the Canadian Broadcasting, a very reputable source. I would p[refer you do this rather than waste my time. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I was a bit cranky last night. The Fraser Institute, as you can see by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp article, does studies from the point of view of pro-capitalism. It also has been engaged in a series of studies in which it tries to show Canada's medicare system operates poorly because of long waiting times for surgery and emergency rooms. To say that it's "right wing" is not meant as an insult. It is also not a stretch to say that it's anti-medicare. I suppose "right of centre" might sound a bit better. However, I don't think anyone familiar with Canadian politics would dipsute my choice of words, whether they are rightists, leftists, centrists or people involved with the Fraser Institute. I get snappy when I think I'm being dragged into discussions by Wiki-fiddlers, the type of people who run up their contribution counts by putting requests for citations all over entries and doing no real research, editing or writing. I see you do actually contribute substantially to the project, so I should have cut you some slack. You'll see most of my work involves copy editing, and that I'm not accused very often of NPOV. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Comic Book Publication Dates

I agree - I'd go with both. Personally I think volume is rather clunky and open to confusion and would be fine with using the year the new series started in, but anything that helps clarifying the situation is fine by me. It might be worth running past the Comics Project talk page to get consensus but it'd certainly be an approach I'd agree with (as "volume" doesn't really help people place it chronologically - especially as some series are long running). (Emperor (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC))

Tiger Shark

In answer to your question, see here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Titles with numerous volumes As to the mini-series, yup, will make a slight correction. There's also a vol. 4 out there as well. Asgardian (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

All-Bats

I will point that there was no source cited for the covers #1 to #8. It was surprising just because I updated that section to get asked for a source. Ax the DC site gets continuously updated, the source will disappear but the published issue will then be the source. There was no point in including a source that would be replaced in three months. The next time you have a problem of that kind, you flash the section asking for the source instead of deleting it. --Leocomix (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan


Next: Saturday September 27
This box: view • talk • edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

349 W. 12th St. #3
Between Greenwich & Washington Streets
By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan rescheduled for October 4

Wikis Take Manhattan has been rescheduled for next Saturday, October 4, due to the rain predicted for this weekend.. I hope you can make it to the new time, and bring a friend (or two)!--Pharos (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridget Marquardt divorce

Good afternoon Nightscream,
Thx 4 your edit removal of Bridet being divorced. I kept telling 'queer scout' (from this 70.108.133.72 (talk) ) but she kept reverting & putting it back in. I told her if she takes a screencap of the page that is acceptable. The link to the gray main court screen isnt ok, & that is what QS linked. Thx. 70.108.115.9 (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
_
You're welcome. However, I'm not sure if a screencap is appropriate. Also, I encourage you to register. It's free, and takes only seconds. Welcome to Wikipedia! :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
_
Afternoon. Y wouldnt a screencap be alright? So long as it shows the web adress box, and the the screencap is properly xplained when it added to wik images, it should be good right? I dont get y that website doesnt have a direct link anyways. 70.108.115.9 (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

OHOTMU

Yes, Wikipedia doesn't regard it as reliable. I will try and find the link. Unfortunately, it is proven wrong quite easily. Strength is the best example as the characters are usually far stronger than their supposed limit. Thor, for example, can lift over a million tons (to judge by feats in the comic books), not a mere hundred. So if that's incorrect, then by that logic it all has to go. By the by, I am getting another opinion on Black Bolt. Asgardian (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/editorial_guidelines#The_use_of_in-universe_statistics_and_chronology Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I've been asked to again look over recent events and postings here and elsewhere. From my end I think you're having a hard time working out how to deal with User:Asgardian. I can understand and appreciate that. It looks to me like you had issues with an edit at the Black Bolt article. You raised these on Asgardian's talk page, [18]. It then looks like Asgardian again removed info and posted why to the talk page rather than to either your talk page or his/hers. It looks to me like you may have missed that, and posted a warning on Asgardian's page, [19]. I think the warning is overly strong, but that's just my opinion. From there Asgardian reverts teh article again, and so you post another warning, [20]. Again, I think this is the wrong way of doing it. What you seem to be wanting to say to Asgardian is that he/she shouldn't be acting as he/she is, which is fair enough, but I don't think the use of the warning templates is the right way of doing that. Certainly Asgardian shouldn't have reverted the page, but it looks to some people like you are trying to use your "admin powers" to settle the dispute in your favour. I don't actually think that is true, to be honest, you just want your opinion to be respected, as is your right on Wikipedia, and you are attempting to explain that to Asgardian through your warnings. All in all, it looks to me like you're getting frustrated here. It also looks like there is a content dispute, and you both have opinions on the right way to present the article. I think there are issues with the way Asgardian is reacting, certainly not following BRD, but I think also your warnings are not helping the matter. I think you may be better of posting details of the dispute at the comics project to get more eyes on it than making it an issue with Asgardian's behaviour. Asgardian's behaviour can be better judged by outsiders. If you can demonstrate a consensus which Asgardian is acting against, you will have a position which can be better sympathised with. I don't think you're way off base here, but I think there's a better way to solve it. Get more people involved. I think in this post of yours, [21], the third paragraph, which starts off "Finally, please, no more threats" is counter-productive. It doesn't help move the debate on and is commenting on the user rather than the article. I think the first, second and fourth paragraphs are the best parts of that post and the avenues you need to concentrate on. You have made a case, and you are right that the onus is on Asgardian to reply to it. Concentrate on discussing those points, rather than the rightness or wrongness of threats, warnings and the rest of it. There is more than one way to write an article, and people should explain why they think your way is less right than their way. Hope this in some way helps. If you do find yourself getting frustrated with Asgardian, it might be better to walk away from the issue for a while or go to someone else for advice rather than responding immediately. I think your request for a review to Daniel Case is a good one, and I hope he does give some input, I'd certainly be happy to offer any advice or answer any questions you have. I tend to suffer from frustration myself. A key thing to remember is that things don't have to happen on Wikipedia immediately. They can be allowed to happen eventually. All the best, Hiding T 11:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't mean to say that behaviour is not an issue, but I just think making the argument about behaviour can be counter-productive. You're right that we should try and correct behaviour though. Hopefully the content issue will work itself out and then we can review behavioural issues. I have posted a comment on Asgardian's page regarding the need to discuss, and hopefully that'll move things forwards. Hiding T 13:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • There's not really a contradiction. In my mind you can correct behaviour by ignoring behaviour which is wrong and setting a good example through your own actions. If Asgardian refuses to talk, then there are several options. Leave the article a while, get other editors involved or revert once on a daily basis until someone gets bored. The last is not exemplary, the first can be frustrating which leaves the middle option as the best way forwards. Hopefully the issue is resolving itself. Do you want me to provide any input anywhere? Hiding T 08:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Deleted Barnstar

'Tis OK. :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Jim Lawson

The information I added earlier is common knowledge to most HVRHS graduates and staff and is even stated on the schools wiki entry, is there any way to keep it?? Sweetnorbert (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ultron

I've started a discussion here, and would be interested in your opinion on the inclusion of that content. Thanks.

In addition, I thought you should know that Asgardian has continued his deletion of material in a number of edits:

  • In this edit he removed an entire section, but in his Edit Summary, he claims that he "reworked" it. I have restored it.
  • In this edit, despite the fact there is currently an ongoing discussion on the Black Bolt Talk Page regarding the use of comic book titles in articles, Asgardian deleted a reference to the title in which an event took place. I restored it.
  • In this edit, Asgardian deleted most of a section, calling it "fancruft". I started the discussion on that Talk Page because I think there's room to argue over this, and have not reverted it for this reason. I explained why I believe it's not "fancruft", but think we need a consensus on it.
  • In this edit, Asgardian deleted two thirds of a section, claiming in his Edit Summary, "Not well written - just the facts." First of all, I explained to Asgardian some time ago that poor writing is not a valid rationale to delete material, in lieu of a rewrite. Second, by saying "just the facts", he implying that there was non-factual material in that section. As one of the editors who participated in the writing/editing of that section, I assure you, having read the books, that it is indeed facts. In addition, by deleting mention of Yellowjacket by name, Asgardian is deleting mention of the only appearance of someone under that identity in the Ultimate universe. I pointed this out to Asgardian on his Talk Page. Nightscream (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the notice (which you seem to have also cross-posted to others, which presumably prompted Emperor's comments, below).
To me, this looks like a content discussion. A question of whether certain content should be considered "fancruft" (a term, the general use of which, I personally am not thrilled with, as its usage is generally vague and subjective) and whether such content should be kept in an article or removed. That said, while I personally may not like the term, I have no opinion on whether it, or rather, Asgardian's implied meaning of it, is applicable in this case, which, as I noted, appears to be a content question.
As I believe you know, when it comes to Asgardian and questions of content, I by default remain neutral.
That said, considering that you have had concerns about the sections of text that Asgardian has removed in the past, perhaps a notice to the WikiProject talk page may be in order? (Perhaps even crossposting this same notice to there.)
I hope this helps. - jc37 01:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Other points

On your other points:

  • The What If? is an alternate version and should be in the appropriate section. Whether it should then be trimmed down is another issue (and apparently a similar one to the Ultron problems). I'd favour a smaller section but not so minimal. The edit summary is bordering on the misleading (although one man's "reworked" is another man's "stripped to the bare bones").
  • That is an issue that has come up time and time again - I can't see any reason the FCB has to completely exclude any out-of-universe material - the big problem is too much in-universe content. I have no idea why the Kenneth Branagh information isn't considered newsworthy [22] despite it being actual news in one of the leading trade publications.
  • Anything ending in "cruft" should be avoided - a decent reason should be provided. I can see the reasoning behind it (to stop runaway reiteration of plot) but the exact length is tricky. Personally I'd prefer a little more content than a brief sentence as that leaves such sections awfully "listy".
  • The edit summary is indeed poor - as you say "facts" makes it seem like there is some black and white dividing line and the rest is speculation, while it is in fact subjective. I am amazed something quite so simple can't be sorted out. If you want my opinion it seems like the kind of information that should be included. (Emperor (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC))
Indeed and I try and point out the guideline issues when they come up but I also can't follow him around and issues like whether certain wording is needed are issues you have to thrash out or get more input from other editors. As for blocking that is an issue you should raise with jc37 and/or Hiding but as I say it is often subjective and proving bannable offences looks to be tricky as it is usually this side of the line and it is more a pattern of behaviour than any specific incident. Poor/misleading edit summaries when pushing their own preferred version while the content is still under discussion is certainly a recurring issue that flies in the face of WP:CONSENSUS and borders on WP:OWN (in that the editor thinks they know the best way the article should be written). I'll leave the last call to the others but I'd suggest setting some clear lines that shouldn't be crossed: reverting when the content is under discussion (as well as misleading edit summaries). Something like that. (Emperor (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC))
My point is that I am chasing up obvious guideline issues but my time is finite and where it veers into areas that are more content disputes this issue is worth raising with a broader body of editors (as areas like how much information should be included in "other media" sections is a topic which touches on nearly all popular comics characters from the Big Two). It is worth noting that I have made progress on articles like Hank Pym but it sucked up a lot of my available time.
On the patterns of behaviour: these aren't usually things that would get an editor banned but it is possible to set out lines in the sand which shouldn't be crossed which then could get a user blocked. I think it is easy to show editing in their preferred version while it is under discussion (which flies in the face of WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS) and is one of a number of actions that seem to tie progress up (and waste a lot of people's time). This is an approach jc37 has already started on misleading edit summaries [23] and I'd recommend discussing further such limits with jc37 and take it from there.
On Black Bolt: I am not sure what is going on there but see this. (Emperor (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC))
Well, personally, what he did there was certainly along the right lines and is an angle worth pursuing. Feel free to discuss it more with him or to get more input from other editors if you aren't happy with anything. (Emperor (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC))
The editor who add his comments in the above-mentioned link is unfortunately all emotion and no logic. He's been trumped on a few articles by others and taken it personally. Asgardian (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet, you yourself are making personal comments about other editors. Again. Nightscream (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, you look his History and decide. That was a fairly clinical comment from myself. Asgardian (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I will look at the policy that tells us not to make personal comments, and decide that you made a personal comment. Again.
All editors whom I've observed cherry-picking the policies and guidelines they like to follow, but chucking the No Personal Attacks, Don't Bite the Newbies, Assume Good Faith, etc. policies right out the nearest window, always, without fail, find some way to rationalize this behavior. "Clinical" is simply one more. Nightscream (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Living Laser Consensus

There is on what you asked for. I just have to backtrack and find it. I think I know where it is. Asgardian (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Black Bolt & Living Laser

On your points:

  • I think you've made reasonable efforts on the Black Bolt front and just ignoring requests for comments and explanation. As I've said I know of nothing which says that FCBs should be 100% in-universe, in fact the main concern is usually from an article being too in-universe.
  • I think I touched on this previously - the What Ifs? are alternate versions, so the Living Laser section should be in the other versions section. I must assume the consensus referred to is one that the in other media/other versions sections should be kept trimmed back to a bare minimum. Problem is I don't know of such a consensus and, while we should keep an eye out for such sections bloating, I don't think we can practically apply such a consensus to every occurrence (this would imply it was at the level of a policy which it clearly isn't). It would, for example, make sense if the topic is fully covered in another article so you'd only need a quick overview. That case doesn't apply here - the only place this is discussed is in that section, granted it might need a bit of the fat trimming from it but that could apply to just about everything here. So in summary: Yes it needed moving, no I can't think of a justification for stripping it down to the bare bones.

Hope that helps. (Emperor (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

Again on the points:
  • Yes sorry I didn't actually finish my sentence I meant something like: "his ignoring you doesn't make this go away" so if he won't engage us on the points we've made I think it is not unreasonable to move on and to add this back in. My compromise might be to start the "Publication history" section (as it needs one) and add the majority of material there and throw in {{expand}} as all the earlier publications need adding in.
  • I'd recommend adding the content back in where the section is now (as if it has been simply moved). Again as a compromise, if you think it can be trimmed down a bit then go for it (it seems a bit long for a single story).
So basically move forward with the changes you and I think seem perfectly reasonable but it'd be worth doing it in the way I suggest (Black Bolt should have a PH and it seems the best place for what we have - as the comics haven't been published there isn't a lot of plot to be going on with but I don't see a problem with adding some in with out-of-universe qualifiers thrown in). (Emperor (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC))
Personally I prefer an integrated PH and FCB but the examples you state are the exception and not the rule - the basic approach (and the way the Comics Project suggest you start articles) is laid out at WP:CMC/X#Comic book characters. The integration tends to happen with the bigger characters with a long history (and usually when they approach the top levels of quality) but that isn't the case with Black Bolt. How do you do it? As has been done with various other characters lacking a PH: Add the section, add the relevant bit of information you want to add and then add {{expand}} as you can see at Cyclops (comics) and Vixen (comics). Now it may be that these two sections get edited together as the article pushes on to GA/FA status but it isn't a B yet, partly because it is missing a PH, it is that section which is suitably out-of-universe and can be used for character development as well as the actual issues they have appeared in. It is this section which will absorb with FCB as the article improves. Without it the article will struggle to go up much higher.
The rest of your reply is a whole different topic - I'm not sure why you move on to suggesting further measures when you haven't tried my suggestions. There is no rule he has to talk to you but if he doesn't, it rather means he is ruling himself out of having a say in the direction the articles take in their next step, so if he starts reverting again he is on thin ice.
You asked my opinion and I gave it to you - I don't think you can just decide to skip moving things forward because you've assumed what Asgardian's reaction will and seem to have moved straight on to talking about sanctions. You are perfectly welcome to ask other people for an opinion, but you might want to be clear about what you want to do: improve the articles or impose further sanctions on Asgardian - I was discussing the former. I don't see why we are discussing the latter based on what you think might happen. So to answer your question: "what point do you agree that it becomes unavoidable to make administrative decisions?" When we aren't dealing with hypothetical situations. (Emperor (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC))
But I have addressed the issue - the article needs a PH. This can then be used for things like "Dan Abnett and Andy Lanning will be..." etc. As I've said I know of no reason that FCB shouldn't contain things like the title especially where the story is not with us yet. This happens a lot on other articles without an eyebrow being raised (although I have tended to move some of the information to the PH to keep the FCB focused on the actual story, even if described in out-of-universe material) and I know of no reason why it shouldn't be done here.
When I say you haven't tried the suggestions I mean the ones I give at the start of this section. The ones that deal with the nest step for the articles - which is what you asked me about. I have given you my suggestions on what to do next, you are welcome to accept or ignore my advice.
Again you ask me about sanctions - as I've said before I am not uninvolved (and neither are you) and will not be making any decisions on this and will leave the call up to other admins. However, as we have spent a lot of time discussing this and provided him with plenty of opportunities to help build consensus if he attempts to keep imposing his preferred version I would support calls for further sanctions. In fact it might be wise to drop people like jc37 and Hiding letting them know that we have come up with the next steps and if Asgardian again removes the material then they should consider further sanctions. Again I'd support this - a lot of editors have put in a lot of time on this and just ignoring everything and carrying on regardless is a serious issue. Making clear where the lines in the sand are beforehand really puts the ball in Asgardian's court. I assume they have this page on their watchlist but it'd be well worth making it clear.
It is also worth pointing out that we are discussing how to deal with disruptive editors who don't flagrantly breach the guidelines (we have run into a number of editors who game the system) [24] - it will clearly take longer than more blatant violations but I feel it is possible. (Emperor (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC))
That is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. We've talked this through, you've tried to get him engaged in debate and then he just goes and removes it anyway. I'd recommend talking to an uninvolved admin about getting another block imposed. I'd also make them aware of any other changes you are planning on making (and point them to places like this which demonstrate that you have done what you can from your end) so that they can be ahead of the curve if it happens again elsewhere. (Emperor (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC))
Sure give it a go - it might be that some "fatigue" over the issue sets in but worth bringing it up. Especially if there are specific guidelines/best practice you want to run past people. Getting clarity and consensus on things will make your life easier.
Also keeping discussing it with him as he does listen to reason - it just takes more time than usual.
In addition keep Daniel Case and other uninvolved admins up to speed as it helps demonstrate the lengths you are going to in order to resolve matters and it makes it easier for them to spot and assess issues that arise and keep an eye on problem areas. (Emperor (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC))
Well you can't make them ;) However, if you lay out the specific issues and ask for input that should get more replies than a more general post. That'll help build consensus. (Emperor (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC))
It still seems stuck in a rut - I see you have asked other editors for input so we'll see if that helps. (Emperor (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

scream

hey nightscream just wanted to know, shouldn't there be a link at the top of the football player Corey Clarks' page as well letting people know if they want to read about Corey Clark the singer to follow the link to his page? It's displayed like that on the singers page so wouldn't it make sense to do the same for the football players page? Talk to you soon Liaishard (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Calum Forrester

I read an article last night on an up and coming scottish rugby player and thoroughly enjoyed it. Tonight I have come on and seen that you have deleted the large majority of information and, to be honest, I am furious. As a long time fan of Glasgow Warriors I stand by the accuracy of the article and would say that what you have done amounts to little more than vandalism. Despite having no knowledge of the player, the team, or the accuracy of claims, you have seen fit to delete whatever you fancied. It does not concern you and you would be well advised to mind your own business. If you don't like the page...don't read it!

Reading the other posts on this page, it seems to me that this is how you get your kicks, as I am not the first to be infuriated by your tampering. In my opinion, this is pathetic.

I have also noticed that you have written and contributed to many articles and, therefore, I am presuming that you would be pretty pissed off if someone went and deleted them all.

Dont make me do it...get a life and stop pissing on other peoples cornflakes! This is your one and only warning, don't touch the calum forrester page again Canon865 (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Section header linking

Everything got lumped together there.

WP:MOSHEAD is clear on this - links should not be added to section headers: "Section names should not normally contain links, especially ones which link only part of the heading; they will cause accessibility problems."

They look horrible (especially when someone adds a footnote to the section header) and just aren't needed. Either {{seealso}} or {{main}} (depending on how much the other article covers) and/or working the link into the first sentence is a far better option. I try and remove these when I see them (when I'm not distracted by doing something else). (Emperor (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Proposed deletion of David Lopez (artist)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article David Lopez (artist), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RMHED (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Issues regarding Asgardian

I'm not -quite- exactly sure what you wish me to say or opinine upon. Clicking through the link reveals a very long discussion between you and Asgardian. I have not finished the discussion because I need to sign off real soon but so far, I have agreed with everything you said concerning Asgardian. But I am also not quite sure if I am nuetral. He used to do his well-known negative behavior with me but, again with me, he has lately been the veyr model of a modern Wiki editor. In conclusion, he has ticked me off in the past but I agree with what you are saying. Feel free to ask more detailed questions of my opinions. Lots42 (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm nuetral on the topic of Asgardian either. He -has- behaved, but he has done a lot, a lot more misbehaving. As for the other stuff, I'll need to mull it over. Lots42 (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've posted some thoughts at User_talk:Asgardian#Living_Laser. The rest of it is taking a while for me to figure out. Doczilla STOMP! 08:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Lots42's first few sentences here, but while the user name "Asgardian" seems familiar to me, no specific memories of behavior come to mind. Furthermore, there are those who would say that my behavior in Wiki is negative (I deny the validity of such criticism, of course). Besides, I appear to be significantly crippled by having no idea what an "FCB" is. There is only one point that I would address: While it is true that according to Wiki regs, citable sources are all that is relevant and one's own knowledge of a given article's subject is unimportant, there is no doubt whatsoever that strict enforcement of such a policy would be to the encyclopedia's detriment. I had a big dispute with one editor that a decades-after-the-fact published statement by Tom DeFalco about a Marvel magazine of the 1970s was unchallengable by my personal memories that said statement was completely lacking in factual accuracy, until I linked in a "third party opinion" ruling that when the topic of an article or section of an article is a magazine, the issues themselves are citable sources. The common sense of the situation was irrelevant to him because he had a published and citable statement from someone who would seem to be a good source. If I had not known of that ruling, a piece of crap would probably stand posted in an article. I hope that accomplishes something, and otherwise, I'm sorry that I can't help. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather not move my remarks to the bottom of the page because I'm not joining that part of the discussion until I understand it better. Doczilla STOMP! 02:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I read the other section, but I don't understand it to my satisfaction. Asgardian's history is long and complicated, and far screwier things have happened in the past than what that one section indicates, so I'm not jumping in and casting judgment down there until I can work my way through all the other pages involved in the current set of events and really have a sense of what's going on and what's different this time. Doczilla STOMP! 07:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

While I've never had any dealings in the past with Asgardian, I've read other discussions involving him in other articles in the past, though I've never gotten involved in them. I'll have to read over it more before forming a solid opinion in this particular matter. In those past discussions I've read, he strikes me as the type of editor that wants things the way he wants them and doesn't really give a hang about policy or consensus. He's been involved in a number of conflicts in the past with a similarly minded editor User:David A. Dave, I've had experience with and both he and Asgardian seem to have ownership issues regarding some articles. They want what they want regardless of what policy or consensus says. As I've said, I'll have to read over this particular situation with him more before forming a solid opinion.Odin's Beard (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:10.25.07SlottDavidAtHanleybyLuigiNovi.JPG

Image:10.25.07SlottDavidAtHanleybyLuigiNovi.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Dan Slott and Peter David.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Dan Slott and Peter David.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

File:11.15.07MargaretDowneyByLuigiNovi.jpg is now available as Commons:File:11.15.07MargaretDowneyByLuigiNovi.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Section length, Book titles, et al.

My history with him is largely negative, so I don't know if I'd really be a neutral voice. Your arguments against him are better than mine would be, anyway. Good luck. --DrBat (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter if the same admins were involved in the rejection of my appeal and in Asgardian's block or not. Administration as a whole is supposed to be consistent on such things. --Ted Watson (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
You posted on my page: Hypocrisy is not an accusation leveled at a decentralized group. If you cannot see the complete fallacy of that—and the fact that you wrote it says you can't—there is nothing to be gained from continuing this discussion. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I said "there is nothing to be gained from continuing this discussion" and you have proved it. Please stay off my talk page. Thank you. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:MorilloMixerCover.jpg)

⚠
⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? meco (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't normally deal with images because, as it says on my user page, I'm blind. But as far as I know, logos are non-free content. The image can either be speedily deleted under CSD I9, as it has an invalid license, or a non-free content rationale can be added. I'm not sure which would be best for the image in question since I can't see it to compare it with the original logo. Ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Graham87 23:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Darwin XMDG-2.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Darwin XMDG-2.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Living Laser

Hi, I've had a go at cleaning this article up, and frankly I've largely failed. There is *nothing* to work with beyond plot summary and you cannot make a house without bricks. Take a look a the changes and see what you think. I'm not sure how the article can be developed further because unlike say Galactus (which I also cleaned up), there seems to be virtually no third party sources to drawn upon. It's a problem. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nightscream. I've been away for a few days and just got your message on my talk page. As always, I'm flattered to be asked for my opinion, and I can see from the discussion at User talk:Asgardian that my name came up in relation to fancruft.
I try to go by this yardstick: Would a non-comics fan, a person who knows nothing about the character, be able to understand the article and get a sense of significant milestones in that character's history. It's like if I go an article about a character in an ancient Greek drama: Will I get the references the other characters, places, and events — will they be in context and perspective? I can't say I'm getting that with Living Laser as it now stands, partly because a lot of character's biography appears in Publication History.
I started reading the Asgardian-block posts, and then realized that the section was much, much longer than I'd imagined, and I stopped short. In general — and I say this as someone who has had many contentious dealings and an ArbCom case with Asgardian — I do find that his FCB edits are written in a more encyclopedic WP:TONE than in a lot of other comics articles, and have appropriately streamlined prose (i.e., using a single word to replace a multi-word phrase that says the same thing). And he does weed out a great deal of material that matters to comics fans but would be, I believe, simply dense minutiae to the general-audience reader at which Wikipedia is aimed. This doesn't excuse Asgardian or anyone else from getting into an edit war or being uncivil, of course.
All this is more in the way of big-picture perspective than practical suggestion, I'm afraid — the specifics of this issue are pretty wide-ranging and have been debated for almost two weeks, it looks like. Hopefully, I've been helpful. If I get a chance to go in and try to help with Living Laser, I'd be glad to. Do let me add, though I'm sure it's not necessary to say, that you're a constructive editor and a good colleague, and that differences in content can almost always be worked out. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Powers and Abilities of the Hulk merger into the main page

There is a discussion about the merging of "Powers and Abilities of the Hulk" into the main page. I'd appreciate if you'd like to chip in. I'm extremely short on time and energy nowadays. Thanks in advance. Dave Dave (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (re: message on my talk page re: South Park)

After reviewing a few policies, I was inclined to ignore Anthony cargile, but he really did seem to be hounding me, so thanks for the intervention. I didn't mean offence by using the term "fluff". A lot of the "cultural references" for other South Park episodes seemed to be taken directly from fan wikis, so I should have said Original Research when I meant it. I wasn't looking for an edit war, I've gone through the entire run of South Park episodes (all previous eleven seasons) and scrubbed a lot of OR and speculation already. I'm looking through the articles on Star Trek too but surprisingly enough the fan base has kept things pretty decent on those pages. Alastairward (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream. I would appreciate if you would provide your insite in the discussion Final Compromise under the Talk Page of The China Probrem. Thank you. --J miester25 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that compromise on the china probrem talk page. I fully support it, and if the others will as well, then I don't see why it shouldn't go into effect as soon as possible for all SP episodes. Anthony cargile (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

He's at it again. I went ahead with the compromise, and yet he is still complaining about it. He added the fact tag for us, but is still talking about deleting the section. I'm really sick of fighting this, and have better things to do, but come on, we had a perfectly valid WP policy following solution and yet he still fights it! Anthony cargile (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I found another perpetrator: User:24.174.130.135. Unlike Alastairward, who has brought things up for discussion, this user just completely removed Episode Continuity, which was sourced, and harped on Alastairward for removing original research, which was right on Alastairward's part. 24.174.130.135 violated WS 5.1.1 which i stated in this user's talk page and i provided precedents set by admin Rogerbrent, that this user also violated. I would greatly appreciate if you would tell 24.174.130.135 him to stop removing sourced information and abusing users such as Alastairward. --J miester25 (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: what you said on my talk page recently, I'll take it on board when leaving edit summaries in future. Alastairward (talk)

Guinea pig page moves

Hello, Nightscream! Regarding the capitalization of mammal articles, please be advised that the current consensus is to leave existing articles as they are. For a horrifying look into the background of this see:

So, the only real consensus reached at WP:MAMMAL is to leave articles how they are; you really only have a choice if you are creating a new article. Just thought I would give you a reason why I reverted the page moves.

Also, I see you did a cut & past page move on Montane guinea pig. As an admin, I hope you just had a brain freeze on that one! Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:AIDS denialism

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Talk:AIDS denialism. In particular, plaase do no revert other editors to re-introduce unsourced or poorly-sourced defamatory material. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please familiarize with WP:TALK and WP:BLP. The stuff I removed was obvious blp and talk violation. The other comments were a response to it so their out of context w/o the first ones so I took it all out. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 16:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
You commented at my talk, I want be sure you know what blp says. In the lead, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages user pages, and project space." Pls don't make accusings of people until you read policies. Thx RetroS1mone talk 02:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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. RetroS1mone talk 02:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You did not sign your comment at my talk page where you said you were familiar with blp policy but you said it only was for actual article namespace of biographies. I am sorry I did not look at how long you are contribuing I was giving you a frinedly reminder. Pls do not accuse me of incivility as you have now done a few times in last post. When some one has a comment and says, "Robert Gallo will be exposed for the fraud he is," that is what the IP editor said, that is not discussing a source that is an obvious blp violation and if you don't know it, four years or waht ever on Wikipedia, people should tell you. And if you are not knowing the blp policy is for talk pages etc. then people should tell you. That is what I did. Removing BLP violation is not censorship it is major Wikipedia policy. RetroS1mone talk 04:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Nightscream. You have new messages at SheffieldSteel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You said at Jimbo's talk page "The assertion was that Gallo “falsified documents”. The use of four different synonyms to describe this assertion is yours, and yours alone, and the temperament behind such a choice in language seems rather unnecessary and POV-ish."
IP editor said,
  • "Gallo falsified documents to claim HIV isolation"
  • "These same documents are than manipulate by Gallo HIMSELF"
  • "the day will come when Gallo will ahve to answer for his fraud"
So the IP editor is saying, Gallo is a liar and forger for falsifying documents, Gallo is a fraud, I summarized cheat bc doing science like that is cheating.
Stop being tendentious Nightscream. Please strike your accusation of me. Think about your position and what it looks like for a admin acting like this. thx, RetroS1mone talk 01:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Why did you say this? You said "you couldn't resist editing your own post by adding yet another personal accusation, this time about my being "tendentious", and about "how I look", etc." I never edited my own post. I added a new comment responding to your personal attack on my NPOV at Jimbo's talk page.
Then you say you will not talk to me any more. How do you think we resolve problems if not by dialog, you are the one that is urging dialog even against blp policy. Is dialog good when you want it and bad when every one disagrees with you? RetroS1mone talk 02:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area
Last: 6/01/2008
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss your disagreement on Wikipedia policy at talk page for WP:BLP

Nightscream Jimbo Wales' talk page is not where you should talk about your ideas about wp:blp that are clearly against consensus, when you want to change the policy pls go to WP:BLP talk page.

WP:BLP says "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material" You restored potentially libel material about Robert Gallo w/o even knowing what the source was, like you admitted, w/o asking me or any body why the source is bad and w/o looking it up yourself. This can be damaging to Wikipedia and it is very bad behavior from an administrator, my opinion. I will report to the blp noticeboard when you keep doing this. I am not being incivil, i am concerned your understanding on major WP policies is so far out from consensus. RetroS1mone talk 01:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:216.73.77.216

Just an FYI, but per Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses, IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked. I have unblocked and re-blocked the IP for 6 months. VegaDark (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

Hi Nightscream. I've been looking over Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, and it appears they have a point about the talk pages. In the latest version, it says: "These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages." Also, it appears that there is an official Wikipedia:Libel policy, which though you're right it wouldn't meet the legal definition of libel, but still it is policy here. Still, I really don't like the idea of changing someone else's comments; perhaps another solution can be thought out.

BTW, are you bringing your video camera to the meetup? I really liked the fancy camerawork you did in March :) Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Nightscream, I didn't see your note until today- I work in Finance and have been off Wikipedia for a month now due to the financial crisis. Thanks for inviting my opinion. --Kontar (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:TVGNOrleansCast.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:TVGNOrleansCast.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 15:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:9.9.08DKTreacheryByLuigiNovi.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:9.9.08DKTreacheryByLuigiNovi.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:9.9.08DKTreacheryByLuigiNovi.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Good image additions

Nice of you to get the Carmine Infantino and the better Bill Sienkiewicz‎ images in!  And, yeah, from my experience, Infantino really is that grumpy! Nice work, N. -- Tenebrae (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And Michael Golden and Larry Hama. Nice! -- Tenebrae (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

CGC image

Thanks for the CGC image! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:AIDS denialism and BLP

Hi Nightscream, I am very worried about your mis-understanding, my opinion, on WP:BLP now you have added links to the blp violations you restored before at AIDS denialism talk page, I have made a new ANI thread on it here. I am very sorry but i do not think you still understand BLP and it is not good keeping on putting links to blp violations that were put there by people who are banned for lots of violations. It is not personal, i just think other people need to know about what you are doing. RetroS1mone talk 03:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Simone's edit summary was a little abusive, failed to assume good faith (you could have just made an error, and I think you did ... what makes him think you did that on purpose?), and I will warn him, but his latest post to Jimbo's page has a point ... the note should not link to the post that was removed (In fact, IMO, that edit should be oversighted or at least selectively deleted, as the libel problem is that it states a defamatory allegation as if it were fact). Readd the note but without the link, and consider selectively deleting the edit in question. Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask Jimbo for clarification on this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream, I responded on Daniel Cases intervention here. You have a right to complain at other admins and Jimbo Wales, but I think it would also be good that you talk to me directly and not call me obnoxious. I am just trying to make sure people follow a very clear policy and not keep restoring and linking blp violations. I am sorry when you think my one edit summary was rude but I was very exasparated you would come back a week later and link to a blp violation after Jimbo and Sheffield and me showed how you were wrong about blp policy on talk pages. I called it promoting bc making something more visible is promoting it, sorry when that was not your try, but first you restored it w/o researching it and then you linked to it. RetroS1mone talk 00:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Weinstein

You are correct about "Entourage". And also about use of first name. And I have no difficulty with some of your other minor edits. Most of the information in the first two sections - now restored - is detailed in the Biskind book - which has a huge amount of history about the Weinsteins - not all of it negative. The article itself needs work. Weinstein is someone with considerable achievements just in terms of Oscar wins and nominations - and financial success. Yet the "criticism" section is larger than the details of his successful career. This seems disproportionate. What do you think? Davidpatrick (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Winnebago

Thanks, responded on my talk page. Plastikspork (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not exactly sure, but I suppose it doesn't matter unless someone wants to review the tape and look for the logo. Thanks for all your helpful edits and discussion. (By the way, let me know if you want me to voice my input on the "is/was" controversy brewing on Coral Smith). Plastikspork (talk)

Thor (Marvel Comics)

Good edit on the intro, and good explanation. Also, kudos again on adding much-needed images of comics professionals -- I just saw Herb Trimpe and Joe Sinnott. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Challenge Table

I know you essentially created and helped mold The Real World: Brooklyn page, so I began a discussion at the talk page about the Challenge table being in the page. Now, I do understand that they may be involved in a Challenge soon, but I highly doubt it will be the Deul II, or any other one for at least six months, so rather than having it there now, maybe we can add it at a later date. As it is now, it will be wasted space that eventually someone is gonna mention and ask about. Til then Cheers!--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

IP block needs renewing.

You blocked 68.209.168.216 last month, for a month, for continued editing problems. One was his editing to insert 'superhero' and 'supervillain' all over the character pages of numerous character articles. He's at it again contribs. Pleaes renew the block, since he clearly hasn't learned and doesn't care? Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

South Park Pandemic Edit

You posted on my talk page about not citing sources regarding the South Park episode "Pandemic". I added that several of the lines spoken by background actors were identical (in terms of actual words and their inflection and pitch) to lines spoken in the film Cloverfield, at points in the episode which most obviously parodied the movie. I don't believe a citation is needed in this case - if you have seen the film and the episode you will agree that the lines are spoken in exactly the same way and placed within the attack sequence in the same way - the episode and film themselves are the citation. An appropriate analogy would be asking me to cite "the sky is blue" within the Sky article - my answer would be "Citation: look outside". Burningmace 02:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sicko

I still feel Sean Hannity's contribution is unnecessary, but I don't have the time or will to contest it. Dynablaster (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:SilvermanCartoon.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:SilvermanCartoon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC) --Skier Dude (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 07:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Asgardian again

Asgardian continues in his neverending attempts to distort story elements from the Thanos maxiseries. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thanos&action=history As a final resort (after around a year of enduring his attempts to make it severely misleading, and eventually mostly allowing him to get his way) I've temporarily uploaded a panorama of all the relevant elements from the story in question for anyone to use as reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thanos.jpg Your assistance to find a solution would be appreciated. Dave (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Because I am not that familiar with the details of Thanos, and because I don't know which edits you're referring to, I don't really see what specific aspects of Asgardian's edits you're referring to. Linking me to the Edit History of the article as you did doesn't really help. I looked at the most recent edit by him, and it seems that what he did was to remove vague time references (which I agree with), and make minor changes in terms of grammar and image placement (which at present I see as rather neutral). If there is a specific edit you're referring to, it is customary to use Diff links, and to explain precisely what aspect of them violates guidelines/policy. Right now, the only behavior on his part I see that violates WP policy is the language in his post above, including the section title he originally chose (which I changed to a more civil one). Since he's been blocked for issues pertaining to incivility and communicating with others, I'll warn him about that, and look into referring this to an uninvolved admin or noticeboard. Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
There is also the temporary image collage, which contains all of the inaccuracies in question, and is 'easily' skimmed as a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thanos.jpg
The text I feel is misrepresentative is:
"Thanos discovers the truth and attempts to stop Galactus but is easily outmatched. As Hunger begins to enter their universe, Galactus stalls the entity until it adapts to his power, and Thanos fails to destroy the portal that separates it from the majority of its being. Thanos then distracts Hunger and forces Rigel-18 to collide with another planet while detonating a large nuclear arsenal at the point of impact. Galactus survives the explosion, and Hunger is believed destroyed, although a tiny remnant of the organism apparently survives by attaching itself to Galactus and then fleeing. Thanos states that although Galactus' intent was noble, his continued consumption of inhabited worlds will eventually unite the universal population against him, including Thanos himself."
The problems I had were the following:
It is mentioned that Thanos is easily outmatched by Galactus to (appropriately) keep the scales of the two separate and avoid misunderstandings, which is correct as Thanos states that his "personal power is lilliputan compared to [Galactus] might", and after blasting Galactus off his feet (with no actual damage), Thanos is almost unconscious from a single blast despite activating all of his shields. The problem is the suspicious combination with the soon following phrase: "Galactus stalls the entity until it adapts to his power", which gives the appearance that it is a roughly even confrontation. It is not. It is stated outright, first that Hunger is far higher up on the food chain than Galactus, as the latter eats planets, while Hunger eats entire 'dimensions'/universes. Later during the actual confrontation, that Galactus' power is "nothing compared to power backed by an entire reality" which Galactus affirms ("Yes. I sense this to be true"). Also he does not even manage to stall the small piece of Hunger between one frame and the next. :
Second, the sentence: "Galactus survives the explosion, and Hunger is believed destroyed". THis gives appearance that the entire Hunger entity is completely annihilated by the explosion while Galactus easily withstands it. Galactus is explicitly stated (by himself) to have "barely [survived]" and by Thanos to have had only "60% chance of survival", while Thanos' and Galactus' endeavour was always to "cut [Hunger] off from the bulk of [its] being"/stop it from entering, and later again "separated from the vast bulk of its being". The best way to word it would be to phrase it as: "Galactus "barely" survives the explosion, and the Hunger is believed cut off from the majority of its being", alternately "the entered segment of Hunger is believed destroyed".
Formerly I also had a problem with that it is stated that Galactus' intent was "noble". In fact Thanos repeatedly berates Galactus for "[breaking the] social contract with the rest of the universe" by "[consuming] without any regard to the effects of your ravaging". That the inhabitants of the Universe have "little sympathy for this gluttony" and will eventually "join forces to put an end to the peril that is you". Thanos mereley states that finally attempting to find alternate sources of nourishment to populated planets was "the proper thing to do". He dismisses Galactus statement of a "manifest destiny" for "others [to] die so that I may live", observes that Galactus' "monstrous ego almost destroyed [him] and the Universe", and that he has "been given a second chance" to behave differently. However this has apparently been kept rectified. (For how long=?)
Happy Hollidays to you as well btw. Dave (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Now that I've made sure that Asgardian can't get away with continuing to lie in this case anymore he's very blatantly trying the other solution. Your input would be appreciated. For reference please check here, here, and here. Dave (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

IP blocking

Just FYI, I recently had an unblock request from the IP 64.210.199.232, which you unblocked. I unblocked it, as it is a dynamic IP, but I noticed your block was set as an indef block. IPs shouldn't be blocked indef, as all IPs are eventually reassigned. Typically the max an IP should be blocked is 1 month. Prodego talk 21:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't that recent (back in April). Regarding IPs, dynamic IPs are shared among many people. The person behind it one week, one day, even one hour, may not be the one behind it the next. Typically those should be blocked repeatedly (e.g. several 24 hour blocks, or a 12 hour, 24 hour, 48 hour progression) but not for too long. Static IPs are assigned to one person, but most aren't truly static. An example is Comcast Cable, Comcast IPs are reassigned every 2 or 3 years. These could be blocked for up to 6 months. It is usually best to assume an IP is dynamically assigned, unless you know for certain it isn't. Prodego talk 16:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nightscream/Archive_4&oldid=1220729229"