Jump to content

User talk:Nightscream

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 213.104.124.50 (talk) at 16:21, 20 June 2021 (→United Airlines Flight 93). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my Talk Page. If you're new to Wikipedia, you can leave me a message about a new topic by placing it at the bottom of this talk page, under a new heading with a title that refers to the article or topic in question. To create a header, just put two sets of equals signs on each side of the section's title. Please sign your message by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the message, which also automatically time stamps them. Thanks. :-)

Censorship of Mark Millar's The Authority

Figured it's better to duke it out here rather than the edit comments section.

  • The series had censorship issues during Millar's run. The restored uncensored pages in issues #13–14 and 27–28 were first printed in The Authority: Absolute Edition Volume 2 (hc, 504 pages, 2018, ISBN 1-4012-8115-X)
  • Several panels in multiple issues of Millar's run were censored, due to their depiction of violence, sexuality, or for political reasons. The restored uncensored pages in issues #13–14 and 27–28 were first printed in The Authority: Absolute Edition Volume 2 (hc, 504 pages, 2018, ISBN 1-4012-8115-X)

As I said, "several panels" is an understatment since the censorship affected several pages, numerous panels and a couple of covers.

Moreover, the part with the "rationale for censorship" has no place in the bibliography which lists solicited and/or completed and collected work. The passage in question is about the fact that there's a book out there with restored uncensored pages (with a brief sentence of context as to why that warrants a mention at all), but after your edit the focus shifts to censorship itself. This part needs to be moved either to the Career section or to a new section about Millar-originated controversies, given that there have been plenty of those.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.233.80 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@5.18.233.8: Thanks for your message. Just so you know, editors who intend to perform than just a one-off edit are expected to sign in for a username account. It makes it easier to communicate with someone else when you can address them or refer to them by a name.
Regarding the edit, if that's the case, then why not just replace "several" with the amount, or replace "panels" with pages? For that matter, if you object to the elaboration on the behind-the-scenes reasons for this, why not just move it to the article body? Why the wholesale, seemingly knee-jerk revert?
I've removed the qualifying terms and elaboration from the passage, and relegated it to the Career section, where it should've been. Let me know if this is an adequate compromise/resolution. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nightscream: "Why the wholesale, seemingly knee-jerk revert?" — It really was just that, I apologize. The idea to move it to Millar's career section came to me as I was typing the above message, and my original reasoning was that The Authority article covers the censorship part well enough (and, at this stage, I'm more interested in researching/filling out bibliographies rather than biographies).
The current version is adequate enough but I'd honestly rather leave the original as I see it as more of a blanket statement that covers all the issues that started with Millar's run, including the cancelled Hitch one-shot and Azzarello/Dillon volume as well as some of the pages that were cut from Millar's script — and not just the stuff that was eventually restored. But if that's too vague, I understand.
While I'm at it, two more questions: you changed "Grant Morrison claims to have ghost-written" to "Grant Morrison states he ghost-wrote" — is that correct if Morrison's claim, as far as I could find so far, has never been corroborated by either Millar or DC (via any of the numerous Authority reprint collections)?
Last but not least, I wanted to clarify the removal of redundant notes such as these — I do believe these annotations are somewhat important, if actually redundant, as they provide interlinks to publishers' pages (which otherwise are completely absent from the bibliography after the text deletion; e.g.: "Titles published by DC Comics include"). One editor offered the idea of putting links into headings, would that be an adequate compromise?
Thanks. 5.18.233.80 (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@5.18.233.80: Before we continue, could you create a username account to make it easier to address you/refer to you? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nightscream Sure. DETVB (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DETVB: Thanks. Let me see if I can address each of your points.
The censorship "The series had censorship issues" is vague and possibly an example of using the passive voice. I've observed that "have" a verb overrused by those who apparently have difficulty composing sentences with a more well-rounded vocabulary ("exhibited", "characterized by", "typified", etc.). The word "issues" itself is a relatively recent euphemism for "problems", "controversies," "scandals," "flaps", etc. By contrast, saying, "Images and text in issues #13–14 and 27–28 were censored." is completely straightforward", to the point, and unambiguous. It also merges the two sentences in a more streamlined manner.
Grant Morrison's claim I'm not sure I understand what you're asking me here. Can you clarify?
Redundant notes If they're redundant, then they shouldn't be there. Wikilinks should be created in instances where terms naturally appear in text. Text should not be included simply to create wikilinks, since that's backwards. As for headings, they should not contain wikilinks, per WP:SECTIONHEAD. There are plenty of wikilinks in the article body, in the References section, and in applicable cases, the See also section. That's more than enough. Nightscream (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream: No more questions from me. Thanks again. DETVB (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hey, I apologize for my edits on the Oliver Wyman article. I was just trying to help improve it with some info on his brother, but my source wasn’t good enough like you said, it was poorly sourced. I’m just letting you know I’m sorry for it. 73.61.22.72 (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@73.61.22.72: No worries. I appreciate the heads-up. And listen: If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of YouTube in the Oliver Wyman article

Hi, just got your message. And just to clear my name on this, no, that wasn’t me. I removed his/her post because I stated in my edit summery that YouTube can’t be used as a source. 2600:1000:B008:1B93:5D48:4C4:15C3:92C (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC) 2600:1000:B008:1B93:5D48:4C4:15C3:92C (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1000:B008:1B93:5D48:4C4:15C3:92C: Okay, just so you know (as I stated before), it's not appropriate to remove another editor's talk page post just because you disagree with their rationale. See WP:TALK for more on this. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (Re: Comics creator photographs)

Hello, I'm french (so please excuse me for my english) and write articles on french Wikipedia. I'm a comics fan and many of my contributions are on this subject. I just wanted to thank you for the photographies of artists and writers of comics that you post on common. It's so useful. They are very good, clear with the date, the location and so on and I copy many of them on Wikipedia. So thank you very much for yor work. And by the way : Happy new Year. With all good wishes, --Olivier Tanguy (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Olivier Tanguy: Hi, Oliver. I understand your English perfectly well. Thank you for your message, and for your compliment. It is very flattering, and very courteous of you. Happy New Year to you too! Nightscream (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Walter Bernstein

On 24 January 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Walter Bernstein, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 22:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Sim's views on women versus his views on gender.

I'll concede, as I suppose it's arguing semantics whether the controversy was over Dave Sim's views on women rather than his broader views on gender relations. But I will say if you haven't read Cerebus in full, I'd consider doing so and think again about whether it's more accurate to say he has controversial views on women or controversial views on gender relations. Certain sections of Cerebus (like the climax of Church and State) focus more on men and write incredibly punishing things, while other sections focus more on women and are more punishing to them, but the consistent theme (including essays like Tangent or his Biblical commentaries) is over how men and women relate to each other in terms of their function in society. Sim has very strong views on what men are, what women are, and accordingly, what their roles in society should be. Even when he's focusing on women (which I maintain he isn't always) it's always with a mind to how they relate to men. It's simplistic to limit his views to just "I don't like women" which is the impression one may get if they haven't read Cerebus in full or read the contemporary media reviewing it as it came out. But I'll concede for now and instead encourage you to look more into Cerebus and the contemporary responses to each portion. (By the way, if you want to comment on whether or not Garth Ennis should be considered a critic of religion, that's on the talk page for discussion.)Lynchenberg (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial Non-Appearances (?)

Hi. First off, thank you for fixing several of my mistakes in the past. I appreciate it. Second, considering what recently happened with Jamie Madrox, I need help. What constitutes a "trivial non-appearance"? I've been removing those ever since I saw another editor remove them. (I don't remember who they were, it may have been an anonymous IP address.) Due to what happened between you and that IP address regarding Madrox's name drop in X2, I'm not sure what to consider a trivial non-appearance or not anymore and whether I should continue to remove them or not. I'm not sure what to think. Blazewing16 (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blazewing16: Hi, Blazewing. My observation is that editors tend to list any unambiguous reference to a character in a film or TV show, which I have no problem with. I don't think I've used the word "trivia" in regards to listing the appearances; Rather, I've used that to describe the level of detail that some editors add to descriptions of these appearances, especially (though not exclusively) when it is not supported by citations of secondary sources, as with this edit of mine. Nightscream (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of breakout characters: Boba Fett passage

Talk:List_of_breakout_characters#intrigued_one_fan,_10_year_old_boy,_maybe Dream Focus 01:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked users

Hi there,

I saw you left a message for Jytdog, whose account has been blocked for some time now. You may want to enable the setting which displays blocked users' names struck through for easy identification (and if you hover over their username you can see if they will be back soon): Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. FYI :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Thanks. Sorry I missed that. Nightscream (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not?

Can you not insert condescending edit summaries? Unnecessary. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: Can you not exhibit such abject laziness? Unhelpful. Nightscream (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
lol whatever. Happy editing, ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of suicides/Crash Holly

Forgot to lowercase alcohol etc, what about this one https://wrestlerdeaths.com/crash-holly-death/ would you repost it and format it? 2021‎ 2607:fea8:f422:ac00:fce4:da2e:c4a0:739 (talk) 19:06, March 2 2021 (UTC)

@2607:fea8:f422:ac00:fce4:da2e:c4a0:739: I looked through that site a bit, and it says on this page that it is a "tribute website". I'm not sure that would pass Wikipedia's Source Reliability policy. However, I did a Google search and found a Bleacher Report article that supports the material. I restored the information in question to the Holly article, and restored Holly to the List article. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Lovece

Can we discuss your removal of content from Frank Lovece? There are a couple of things that strike me as problematic. Just yesterday, you made changes to similar content with exactly the same sourcing, but today you are removing it entirely. It would be nice to know what changed your mind about the content between yesterday and today. More concerning is that you are editing this article at all. Not only are you friends with Frank Lovece, but I just noticed that you are mentioned by name in the Daily Dot article. You clearly should not be removing this content without discussion. If you would prefer to start a discussion on the BLP noticeboard, I don't mind continuing the discussion there. Mo Billings (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mo Billings: In the first place, I'm curious where you established that I'm friends with Frank Lovece.
As far as the edits, I sometimes make technical edits to articles (in my capacity as a WikiGnome or Wikifairy, as they are sometimes called), sometimes in the form of minor copyediting, and then, after examining the article more closely, make more substantial policy-based changes after some consideration. With regard to the Frank Lovece article, after copyedited that paragraph, I read over WP:BLP, in particular WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which I cited in my edit summary. It seemed pretty straightforward and unambiguous. Do you dispute what that policy says, or my application of it? If so, we can certainly discuss it. Nightscream (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made an assumption based on what I had read in that Daily Dot article. Perhaps I should not have, but it's easily resolved. Are you friends with Frank Lovece? Mo Billings (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not to answer any questions related to attempts by the Daily Dot, or anyone else, to "out" Wikipedia editors. Nightscream (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I'll let the Arbitration Committee deal with it. Mo Billings (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bao (film)

Hello, just wanted to let you know that I re-edited the small change I made since "language barrier" is repeated twice, but I kept it singular instead of plural as you noted. Just for future reference though, I believe "language barrier" can also be used as a count noun (see the plural forms of the word on Wiktionary and Wikipedia). Thanks again for your contributions. P.S. This is my first time using a talk page, so apologies if anything is formatted incorrectly. Nephelephant (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nephelephant: Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:HEAD/MOS:SECTIONCAPS

Hi! Per your recent edit on Gigi Hadid, I've scoured MOS:HEAD to try and find where the capitalization issue comes into question, but for some reason (possibly morning brain) I can't find it - would you mind pointing it out to me? Thank you!--Bettydaisies (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bettydaisies: I'm not sure if the content MOS section in question changed (I've been citing it for many years now), or the redirect link or shortcut changed somehow, but it now appears to be MOS:SECTIONCAPS.
And since we're asking questions, may I ask why decided to engage me in discussion four hours after you reverted the edit? Discussion edits in dispute is certainly in the spirit of Wikipedia's prescribed methods of dispute resolution. Reverting during or before that hardly is. :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I posted on your talk page about seven minutes after reverting the edit. WP:BRD is generally the policy I've been following, but I could see how your edit might not count for WP:BOLD.
Regarding the MOS - "further" appears to still be the first word in the heading, which according to styling, is capitalized. Is there a detail I'm misunderstanding here? If you would prefer, however, I'd be happy to ask another editor for clarification. Thank you.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bettydaisies: Sorry. It says, "18:05" above at the end of your first message. The article edit history pages must be using a different time zone than the ones used by talk page message timestamps. I apologize for my mistake.
As for the heading, the first word is the word "present." The word "further" comes after it. Nightscream (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem, I understand. Thank you for the explanation :)--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bettydaisies: Addendum: This was pointed out to me after our chat: The opening sentence of WP:SECTIONHEAD states:
Section headings should follow all the guidance for article titles (above), and should be presented in sentence case (Funding of UNESCO projects in developing countries), not title case (Funding of UNESCO Projects in Developing Countries).
That's why your search for the relevant text (and mine, for that matter), didn't turn out the reference to the word "capital". It's because it's explained at the wikilinked "sentence case". Nightscream (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that definitely explains it. Thank you for your help!--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fugitives from justice who are no longer sought

Hi, I haven't heard from you in a while. How have you been? I myself have my hands full with edting. Davidgoodheart (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Still breathing. Still editing. :) Nightscream (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, do you think that you could help me with adding entries to missing person cases' lists? I have my hands full with editing and could really use some help and would very thankful to get some. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidgoodheart: Okay. Tell me what you need. Nightscream (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! you can start by adding John Darwin to the List of fugitives from justice who are no longer sought. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidgoodheart: Okay. What's the citation for that addition? Nightscream (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Darwin who was a British former teacher and prison officer disappeared after he was seen paddling out to sea in his kayak on 21 March 2002, at Seaton Carew as he was evading the law after faking his death.<ref>{{cite news|title=Sea search for Missing Canoeist|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1887151.stm|date=2002-03-22|access-date=2007-12-09|publisher=[[BBC News]]}}</ref> After Darwin had resurfaced in 2007 he was then captured and we arrested and he and his wife were charged with fraud.<ref>{{Cite web|title='Canoe Man' John Darwin charged - CNN.com|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/08/john.darwin/?iref=hpmostpop|access-date=2021-03-20|publisher=CNN}}</ref> After being convicted on 23 July 2008 both John and Anne Darwin and were each sentenced to more than six years in prison.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7520803.stm|title= John & Anne Darwin sentenced to jail|publisher=BBC| date=23 July 2008|access-date=24 July 2008}}</ref> Both John and Anne Darwin have now been released on probation. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidgoodheart: Do you have a cite for that last sentence?
Btw, I put the nowiki tag around the citations above so that they don't show up at the bottom of this page. Nightscream (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nightscream, here is a citation that you can use for the last sentence. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tees-12214355. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidgoodheart: Done. Nightscream (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your last edit, good job! Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks again for your help. Is it okay that next time that I ask you to add an entry to a list that you would be able to get the information from the article that needs to added. For me to supply all that information takes almost as long as it does for me to add an entry by itself. Davidgoodheart (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David, at some point I think you need to try to make those edits yourself. It's not hard. All you have to do is learn by observing and imitating. It's how I learned everything from how to render text in boldface to how to add tables to articles. Take the List of Pawn Stars episodes article, which I created. Wanna know how I created those tables? I'll give you a hint: If you asked me to create a table from scratch using hmtl, without looking at any other article, I wouldn't be able to. I simply went to a similar article, and copied the table from there, and switched the info in the right places. That's how I added the previous entry you asked me to add: I went to the article, and looked to see what markup for an entry looked like. I noticed that when I looked an entry, like this one:

|-
|1806
|[[Fra Diavolo]]
|34
|{{nowrap|{{Flag|France|1806}}}}
|Diavolo whose real name was Michele Pezza and was nicknamed "Brother Devil" was a famous guerrilla leader who was wanted for crimes<ref>Alexandre Dumas, ''The Last Cavalier: Being the Adventures of Count Sainte-hermine in the Age of Napoleon '' (New York: Pegasus, 2007)</ref> and in August 1806 while running from the law had fled eastwards over the mountains. Diavolo was captured in November 1806 and then sentenced to death.<ref>Gleijeses, p. 125; Colletta, II, pp. 42–43; Lister, pp. 51–52.</ref>
|-

...there was a repeating pattern, in which the one constant piece of info was a pipe divider followed by a hyphen: |-. Thus, all I had to do was copy and paste the series of pipe dividers in between those two that were followed by hyphens, which formed the architecture for each entry's parameters (and by extension the table), and replace the values (the information given in each parameter) with the ones for the new entry. That's it.

So now I encourage you to dive in yourself! You can do it. :-) Nightscream (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Ranch dressing has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: The material in question was properly paraphrased. Thus, there was no copyright infringement, nor any need for a license. Your empty threat is meritless. Nightscream (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you are incorrect. There is quite a bit of overlap with the source webpage. Here is a side by side comparison. Overlapping text is shown in bold. Your addition:

Endeavoring to keep his work crews happy, he created a salad dressing recipe made with buttermilk and mayonnaise, to which added herbs and spices such as garlic, onion, pepper, and parsley. ... renamed it Hidden Valley Ranch, a guest ranch that offered offering fishing, riding, hiking, and other outdoor activities to visitors. ...Kelley’s Korner, a store at Hollister Avenue (now State Street) and La Cumbre Road, was selling small packages of the dried herbs and spices to be mixed with mayonnaise and buttermilk, which was so popular with customers that it sold over 140 units in one two-day period. ...Henson began a mail order business at the ranch, selling the packages for 75 cents apiece, eventually relegating every room in his home to the oepration. By the mid-1960s, the guest ranch, which was never a great success financially, had been completely taken over by the mail order business. By the late 1960s, the Hensons orders were coming in from all 50 states and more than 30 countries. By the early 1970s, Henson realized that the operation was too big to keep running it at the ranch, which would remain its corporate headquarters. For a time, the dressing mix was blended at Griffith Laboratories in San Jose then shipped down to Los Angeles to be packaged in a 65,000-square-foot facility at the rate of 35,000 packets every eight hours.

Source:

Henson had come up with the recipe while trying to keep his hungry work crews happy in Alaska. The dressing was made with buttermilk and mayonnaise and was enlivened with herbs and spices such as garlic, onion, pepper, and parsley. ...Hidden Valley as a guest ranch, offering fishing, riding, hiking, and other outdoor activities. ...Kelley’s Korner, a store at Hollister Avenue (now State Street) and La Cumbre Road, was selling small packages of the dried herbs and spices and could not keep them on the shelves. In one two-day period, the store sold more than 140 packages. ...He began a mail order business at the ranch with packages selling for 75 cents apiece. It was not long until the operation had taken up every room in the family home. By the mid-1960s, the guest ranch, which had never done all that well financially, had been completely taken over by the mail order business. By the late 1960s, the Hensons were filling orders from all 50 states and more than 30 countries. By the early 1970s, Hidden Valley Ranch dressing had grown much too big for its home. Processing had to move offsite, and the ranch became the corporate headquarters. For a time, the dressing mix was blended at Griffith Laboratories in San Jose then shipped down to Los Angeles to be packaged in a 65,000-square-foot facility at the rate of 35,000 packets every eight hours.

— Diannaa (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Quite a bit of overlap" does not constitute copyright infringement, nor does it preclude proper paraphrasing, which my edits were. I made a point of changing the wording, where possible, so that it was not verbatim. The degree to which this was possible, however, was limited by the straightforwardness of the material. There's only so many different ways to compose a simply worded sentence. Bottom line: the material was properly paraphrased, and your take on this was, to put it kind, an overreaction, as was that other editor who called this "vandalism." Your empty threat is meritless. Nightscream (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but your interpretation of our copyright policy is flawed, and the above is certainly a violation. Feel free to get a second opinion if you like.— Diannaa (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. Yours is simply a different viewpoint, and your reaction to my edit was an overreaction, plain and simple. Nightscream (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have your talk page on my watchlist, Nightscream, I hope you don't mind me weighing in here. To my mind, paraphrasing is saying the same thing in different words. Replacing a few words or phrases in a block of source text may be generally sufficient to avoid accusations of copyright violation or plagiarism, but it isn't paraphrasing (even if it is a common practise here). The final sentence in Diannaa's example is word-for-word the same. Is this type of "paraphrasing" something you regularly do? Mo Billings (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to look through my edit history to see how I paraphrase material from sources, then by all means, feel free to do so. Nightscream (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking if you regularly copy complete sentences from sources. I don't think that's a inappropriate question in the circumstances. So, is this type of "paraphrasing" something you regularly do? Mo Billings (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Misanthropic Bitch for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Misanthropic Bitch, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Misanthropic Bitch until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Pawn Stars episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloody Sunday.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox for you

I wonder whether {{User imm}} fits you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Pawn Stars episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ford Model A.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Allegra de Fontaine

Does Valentina Allegra de Fontaine#In other media seem like a case where we need a single subsection? 2601:243:1C80:6740:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:243:1C80:6740:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9: No. I've removed that subheading. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Page

I assume it was accidental, but you might want to be more careful to avoid misgendering in edit summaries. Just an FYI. Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I think I'm careful enough as it is, which is going to result in some mistakes here and there. A minor blip in an edit summary is nothing to worry about, since the only ones who would raise a stink over it, and ignore the bulk of my trans-supporitve edits, including pronouns, would PC snowflake weenies, and I don't think reasonable people like you and I have to worry about them. Hell, I don't even know if any of those losers edit Wikipedia. Thanks, buddy. :-) Nightscream (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this edit misgendered Page three timed in the article text. I really would suggest that you be more careful. Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Sorry, I missed that. You only mentioned edit summaries, which are more inconsequential. Thanks for pointing out the ones in the article itself. Nightscream (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Real World: Back to New York

This is my source for Rachel Braband being from Orland Park, Illinois,

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044884/

Even in the RW RR Casting Special, it also mentioned her being from that area. Themanilaxperience (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out to me. Unfortunately, websites user-generated content, including imdb, are not considered reliable under WP:USERG. Nightscream (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sentient

Sentience does not imply intelligence. Saying that something is sentient only implies that it's conscious.--Countryboy603 (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Countryboy603: In science fiction, the word "sentience" is sometimes used interchangeably with "sapience", "self-awareness", or 'consciousness' Source. It's the word commonly used to refer to conscious living beings, as on, for example, Babylon 5. It's more than appropriate for the passage in question, and your insistence on changing that passage, as indicated by your persistent edits to that word and other words in that sentence, appears to be motivated more by either a desperate desire to change something, anything in it, whether because of spite, a need to participate, or the intent to troll. If your sole concern was that one word, then why did you then pivot to adding the fact that the character is anthropomorphic? All of this is unnecessary. The passage only needs to explain an essential fact to the reader, and any further details can be gleaned by the reader at the character list article that describes him in greater detail. Please stop. Nightscream (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kalibak AfD

Hey you a fan of Jack Kirby? I ask because of an AFD'd classic character is threatened and wonder if you could have the know how to improve it? A certain son of Darkseid. Jhenderson 777 03:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhenderson777: Well, comics articles are among the three or four major topics on which I edit, if that's what you mean, though I haven't done a lot of editing on the Kirby article in particular. If it's something I can help with, sure. Just link me to the page you need my help with. Nightscream (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is Kalibak. :) Jhenderson 777 11:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jhenderson777: Done. I said "keep". Nightscream (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ok you might want to mention this conversation. I wasn’t sure you were going to vote and all and that wasnt an intention of mine. They could take it as canvassing. It’s ok you voted and all though. Just being cautious. An editor also seemed to contest your vote I see. So if your stance is keep. Let’s hope we can find non “passive” articles. Jhenderson 777 17:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jhenderson777: There are, as I recall, four criteria to be met in order to be considered a violation of WP:CANVAS. As long as you adhered to those guidelines, you should be okay. Nightscream (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Cavendish

I didn't cite the fact that people survive polio for >38 years because it's too obvious - goes in the everyone knows category. Some people die of measles, but most go on to live a normal life. I'd say you need a citation to suggest that life expectancy is normally lower. See the details I left in the Talk section.

Whoever originally did the wording presumably made a mistake, confusing "polio patient" with "iron lung patient", so I switched it to the latter.

So by changing it back you're stating that polio patients normally die a lot younger than the general population, which isn't true until, as you say, you cite it. You've caused distress to the daughter of a polio patient, who originally alerted me to the error - so please back up what you're saying, as I can't even give her your name.

Simple information on polio can be found here:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/polio/

Thanks, Frank. Fjleonhard (talk) 05:24, May 12, 2021 (UTC)

@Fjleonhard: Wikipedia's content is governed by its various policies and guidelines, so when editorial conflicts arise, they should be discussed in light of those principles, and not "distress" that you say I caused to some unnamed individual off-site that I've never met.
If you focused on that, it would not only make it easier for you to communicate with editors with whom you develop disagreements in general, it would have made the issue with the Cavendish article in particular easier to address: Specifically, I took a closer look at the cited source, and it says Robin Cavendish was "one of the longest-lived responauts", and not one of the longest-surviving polio patients. I don't know how I made that mistake when I created the article, and I'm frustrated that I can't figure out how that happened. In any event, I apologize for my mistake. I've corrected the article. Thanks for bringing the matter to my attention. Nightscream (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People v. Turner

I saw that you reverted my edit to this article from May 14, suggesting that I introduced unsourced material. I did not make this up. I was just reverting the removal by a user who, so far, has not made a positive contribution to Wikipedia.

The sentence has been there since February 3, 2020. Since then, you have made several edits to the article, apparently without deeming it necessary to remove the sentence. On June 5, 2020, you have even edited that same sentence.

International media attention is mentioned in the main article, so it does not seem unreasonable to leave the sentence in. Keesal (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Keesal: Let me see if I can address each one of your arguments one by one.
I did not suggest it. I stated it outright. You added material with a citation in violation of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, et al. Whether the material in question was an original passage that you composed yourself or something written by someone else whose subsequent removal you reverted is completely irrelevant to this point. You're suggesting that your addition of the material is merely a revert, then the policies in question do not apply. This is a non sequitur. The policies in question are not specific to whether material is original or reverted.
Nor do the policies have anything to do with whether you "made it up". The issue is the presence or absence of a citation. Not whether you fabricated the claim.
How long the material has been in the article is also immaterial. Passages in an article do not become "not a policy" violation when it goes undetected for some specified amount of time. The Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident, to point to one precedent, occurred when defamatory material about a living person, unsupported by citations of reliable sources, was added to a Wikipedia article, and went undetected for four months, and when it was detected, it was when it was discovered by a friend of the article subject, rather than a member of the editing community. Does this mean that that material was okay for inclusion?
Yes, I edited the passage on June 5, 2020. And if you look at what that edit was, you'll see that was I did was remove uncited material from it --- which is exactly the same policies/guidelines I was following yesterday. What's your point? That I didn't notice at that point that the mention of the international attention garnered by the case was already mentioned in the opening line of the Lead's fifth paragraph, which was is actually supported by a citation of a reliable source? Yes, I'm not perfect. I'm not all-seeing, all-knowing, so sometimes, I miss things at first glance, or I come to form an opinion or viewpoint over time. So what?
The point is, the information is already given in a passage, with great contextual detail, in a properly integrated paragraph in the same section, so adding a second mention of this before hand, with less detail, and tacking it onto the end of a paragraph further up in that section, is both redundant, and an example of poor writing. This is not falsified simply because I didn't notice it to decide upon it months earlier. If you want to counter this viewpoint, then do so on the basis of evidence or reason, or with reference to policy, or principles of good writing. Nightscream (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

White House Press Corps

See WH Press Corps talk page... so we don't engage in edit wars and we can define what former "notable" correspondents are. DoctorTexan (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are already engaging in edit warring right now, by beginning a talk page discussion, and then reverting the passage yet again right after beginning that discussion. Reverting during an edit discussion is edit warring, by definition. For someone with just over 100 edits under his belt who's already been blocked for policy violations, you seem bound and determined to continue on this path. Nightscream (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to argue about the past, I am moving forward. You asked for a source, I provided one. You also demanded that I add him to the "notable" former correspondents to which I disagree with. So I took it upon myself to open a discussion with the community on the talk page regarding the definition of notable. I would ask that you not assume what my path will be. I am trying to get a consensus with the community and I think that is fair given the standard when two individuals have a different outlook. It's not edit warring to give you the source you asked for and correct the change. DoctorTexan (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The other day when we began discussing the White House correspondents article I didn't know how to properly convey what I was trying to say. Thankfully that admin helped explain it for me. But the namecalling and accusing you of certain behaviors was not okay and I am deeply sorry. I hope that you can see by my edits that I am trying to be a different man that I was in the past. I appreciate your suggestions and I took them to heart and made the edits you suggested. My comments to you were not Wikipedia: AGF and they were not the kind of man I want to be so I am sorry. DoctorTexan (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorTexan: S'okay. It takes a big person to apologize, and I genuinely appreciate it. Don't sweat it. I'm glad we were able to subsequently discuss it and come to an accord about the article. Look forward to collaborating with you in the future. :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help: Courtney Stodden

Hey, Jc. Could you put a substantial protection on Courtney Stodden? She came out as non-binary, as reported on April 14, and prefers using singular they pronouns, a point that has been added to the article, with citations, but for the past five weeks, various IP editors (using both Type 5 and Type 6 IP address accounts), have been persistently changing the pronouns back, and ignoring the various messages with which I've attempted to communicate with them on those IP talk pages. Can you protect it for a month or so? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's been protected several times, trying PC1. - jc37 09:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: What's PC1? Nightscream (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Pending_changes_protection - jc37 13:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: Oh, okay, I didn't see that yous said, "Trying" above. I thought at first you said, "Try" -- as in, you were telling me to try to it. You were saying that you were trying it now. Right? Okay, thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like, take a look at Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes. If you feel that you understand the page and can follow the directives there, I could add you to "pending changes reviewers". Please let me know what you think. - jc37 16:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: You mean for just that article? If so, sure. Nightscream (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, It would be granting that to you as a user-right, so you would be able to on any pending changes article. - jc37 17:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: I'm not sure what it looks like or what it involves, but I'll give it a shot. Who has the power to grant that status? All administators? Nightscream (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, any admin. If you are interested, just read over Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes and let me know what you think. - jc37 17:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37: I've read it, but like I said, I'm not clear on what it will look or feel like on an interface level. So let's try it. Nightscream (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, added you. You should see PC edits highlighted in edit histories. If you have any questions about it, please feel free to ask me (or any other admin, obviously : )
And of course, as anything else, if you decide this isn't for you, any admin can remove without needing to check with me. - jc37 18:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jc, can we please put an extended protection on Courtney Stodden? The vandalism/disruptive edits to her article are continuing persistently. Nightscream (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected it.
There was a weirdness when I tried to do it at first (made it seem like it didn't happen), so I did it again, but now that I look at the log, there are two entries. But anyway, done for now. - jc37 15:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: Thanks! Nightscream (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham City

While I apologize for not having added references to the Gotham City Police Department ever since the page got merged to Gotham City due to an AFD consensus where that fact slipped my mind, I'd like to let you know that I did not add the description for the unnamed mayor in question. That was done by someone else. I just wanted to let you know that. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rtkat3: I apologize. I see now I should've examined the diff more closely. Sorry about that. Nightscream (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I forgive you for the misunderstanding. In the meantime, perhaps you can add some sourced information to the Gotham City Police Department section in light of the merging I just mentioned. --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read a lot of Batman, and have enough on my plate right now. Nightscream (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 93

Would you be nice to check or make changes I made to Flight 93. I have taken it too talk page. Also, I fixed a minor error you left on Betty Ong’s article.86.8.200.101 (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to find/add sources for the claim that Rothenberg was the passenger who was stabbed and killed, according to Tom Burnett. I was unable to add a link to the flight 93 book; I was wondering if you could help or correct any mistakes I have made.86.8.200.101 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@86.8.200.101: I've detailed my changes in my edit summaries. Thanks for adding the material that I was able to confirm. Nightscream (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you reason with MONGO or undo their revision back to yours; in the edit they reverted back to, the Jarrah calling girlfriend section is written a bit clumsy and it deleted valuable information you verified from me about Rothenberg.86.8.200.101 (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps take it to their talk page or the article talk page? 86.8.200.101 (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems you already did it, but in the event he wishes to revert, let's try to talk about it here, and then move it to that article's talk page if necessary:
@MONGO: I did not see any bare urls in the article, as you described, but even if I or someone else accidentally neglected to format a ref in the form of a proper inline citation, doing a blanket revert of that and all the other edits I made to the article, as you did, is not the proper solution, FA or not, and I'd think that a veteran editor such as yourself should know that. If I erred, or if I misunderstood your edit summary, I apologize. Can you clarify your view, and work with us to effect proper edits regarding the material in question? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, minor error in your paragraph section about Burnett, you wrote that Burnett and the group were planning to “crash” the plane; the transcript on BFF says they were going to “retake” the plane.86.8.200.101 (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out, I haven’t undid MONGO’s edit; I can’t due to a new sudden edit by someone to a website link. Could you undo the edit, as I haven’t got an account?86.8.200.101 (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I should've looked more carefully at that editor's IP number.
Regarding the transcript, this is the passage in question that I was paraphrasing, which I have copied and pasted here from the source:

They’re talking about crashing this plane into the ground. We have to do something. I’m putting a plan together.

Also, two other things:
* First, let's keep all messages related to the United 93 article in this section, as is customary on Wikipedia. You don't need to create a new section/heading for each message.
* Second, editors who intend to do more than just a one-time only edit are expected to create a username account. It's free, takes only seconds, it allows your location to be more anonymous, and it makes it easier for others to address you and refer to as an individual. Would you consider it? :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have undo the edit and added some sources for the “Mayday!” paragraph.86.8.201.86 (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the “they’re talking about crashing” is referring to the hijackers. In the last call, Burnett is quoted as saying, “We’re going to take back the airplane.” The passengers had lot to live for; why would they retake the plane only to crash it off their own accord.213.104.124.50 (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:50.72.145.155 and IP talk page blanking

The talk pages of IPs fall under WP:TPO and the other talk page guidelines, including allowing the IP to remove posts should they see fit. Please do not insist that an IP keep a record of every single post ever made to their talk page. Primefac (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: I don't see mention of this at WP:TPO. Can you point out where it says that, or where there was a community consensus reached on that? Nightscream (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OWNTALK (which is further down the page) and WP:BLANKING. Primefac (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Lisa of agents of shield episodes" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lisa of agents of shield episodes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 15#Lisa of agents of shield episodes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gonnym (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham in film

Yes, locations in many different cities were used in filming various Batman movies. However, none of those locations are famous landmarks or otherwise recognizable as being in those cities, EXCEPT for the ones which indicate that Gotham City is actually New York City. The idea that the Burton-Schumacher films take place in a world where there are two Statues of Liberty is balls-out insane. I have the two-disc special editions of ALL of these movies and I'm not afraid of digging through dozens of hours of bonus features and directors' commentaries to find proof that this was the artistic intent.

UPDATE: it looks like I don't have to. The article's own section 6.2: Films is chock full of citations that Gotham City is an alternate NYC in both the Burtonverse and Nolanverse, though with a different area code and some other alterations. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@73.70.13.107: It does not matter if you think it's "insane". The fact remains that your conclusion that the use of the NYSE means that it is intended to be such in the film is your personal interpretation, which as I mentioned on your IP's talk page, is not permitted as a basis for adding material on Wikipedia. Did you read those policies and guidelines I linked you to?
Whether a particular location is "famous" or "recognizable" is subjective. Recognized by who? You? What about the other people who indeed recognized those landmarks, and have mentioned them in analyses of the films? The Chicago skyline will obviously be more familiar to a person from the Chicago area, or who frequently travels to that area, whereas it was not familiar to me, being that I live in New Jersey. As another example, there are plenty of famous New York City landmarks in Richard Donner's Superman, such as the World Trade Center, and the Empire State Building, as well as other common locations familiar to me, like the building that serves as The Daily Planet, because I have frequently traveled to New York City. Hell, the very landmark you mention, The Statue of Liberty, is also seen during Superman's battle with the three Phantom Zone criminals. Does that mean that Metropolis is also an "alternate New York"? We can certainly interpret this for ourselves if we like, but we don't get to add that opinion to Wikipedia, since it's not permitted by the WP:NOR policy.
Yes, that other section has citations. Your addition, however, did not, and did not say the same thing. Indeed, if there was already a section in the article that said the same thing about the city in film, then why would you sandwich another subsection about that in a section about the city's location in comics?
What the In other media section in question says is that different depictions of the city in film have interpreted it in different ways, with the Burton films indeed basing it heavily on New York, whereas the Schumacher ones imagined it as "a cross between 1930's Manhattan and the "Neo-Tokyo" of Akira," and one scene in particular placing it "somewhere on the New England shoreline, possibly as far north as Maine." Christopher Nolan stated that Chicago is the basis of his Gotham, with some cues taken from New York for things like the garbage trucks. Employing multiple sources for fictional settings is common in this way.
Bottom line: these policies and guidelines I described and linked on your talk page must be followed, or else additions that violate them will be reverted, and persistent violation of them tends to result in the violator being blocked from editing. Please do not make that necessary. Please take the time to learn these policies and adhere to them. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nightscream&oldid=1029539178"