User talk:NinjaRobotPirate

Disney

Hey don't forget the legend that Walt Disney was born out of wedlock in spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeljackson87 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

AFT5 re-enabled

Hey NinjaRobotPirate :). Just a note that the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5 has now been re-enabled. Let us know on the talkpage if you spot any bugs. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Re Personal attacks at Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes

I am greatly offended by the latest personal attack by Liangshan Yi in the RFC comments. As this needs addressing and I am not allowed to take further part in the RfC I thought you may be able to do something. Only one of the current editors was editing the article at the date of Liangshan Yi's latest "makes Deckers look bad" diffs (Nov 2009) and he had only begun editing it a few weeks earlier with all his edits involving the reversion of spam and vandalism.[1] The first edit to add or remove actual content by any current editor was made in April 2010 and within six months the article was looking very similar to the current version. It can equally be argued that the current Australian editors are responsible for the neutrality of the current version.
Also P&W and Liangshan keep going on about Luda being a case that proves their argument. Luda in fact has been specifically mentioned as part of the generic dispute as can be seen here. Cheers Wayne (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not asking that you report it or anything like that. I just feel someone should point out the flaws in his argument to put the constant claims of Australian bias to bed. Wayne (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Music Tags

Hi, the RFC at Talk:Arlene's Grocery was removed so what do we do now in your opinion? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi it was closed, should we talk at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music like you suggest? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi did you miss my message here? Sorry I do not wish to bother you, thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Would you like to start that discussion, you can give me the link, it will be educational for me. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Beyond the Black Rainbow

Greetings... Thanks for your helpful editing in the Beyond the Black Rainbow article. I noticed you added some reviews to the "Reception" section. I wrote down the BtBR reviews of a number of major magazine / newspapers in the article's talk page. You mind giving them a look sometime? Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

RSN

Hi NinjaRobotPirate. Thanks for your comments in the section on WP:RSN regarding the website 'movie-collection.com'. Whilst I am considering the possibility that your assessment is true, I am currently not convinced due to the reasons I have mentioned in my reply to your comment. I'm not sure if you watch the page or if you just stop by it from time to time like I do, so I thought I'd let you know I have replied to you comment on your talk page, as I am somewhat eager to find out if this source can be used or not. I'm going to wait for at least a third opinion anyway (or ask for one if nobody else drops in on the conversation) before deciding on whether or not to use the source, i'd just appreciate if you could take my comments into consideration when you look at the source again. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't watch the page. Thanks for the note. It's probably a good idea to get more opinions, because I'm certainly no expert. However, the site seems quite suspicious to me, and I didn't see any obvious source listed for their content. That immediately set off warning bells, as well as the broken English. Sometimes you can find citations for awards on the website for the organization, but it's often very difficult to find citations for nominations. I've found local newspapers to be helpful in that respect (for example, the Toronto Sun for the Toronto International Film Festival). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice and comments. Freikorp (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thank you for the helpful copy-edits to Fucking Machines, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate external links

Hey NinjaRobotPirate. I saw your post on my talk page, and was wondering which rules the links broke. The website I linked to has a huge amount of information on collectibles, particularly for many that are hard to research. —Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1

As the WP:PR reviewer, I was hoping you might care to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You are invited for discussion

Hello,

As one of the participants in the original discussion, you are invited to participate in the follow-up discussion to a Mass removal of indefinite rangeblocks under controlled conditions. Your views will be appreciated.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOVs

Thanks for bringing the FDFW article to my attention. Definitely a hit piece. I tried to tone it down and dial it back to neutral. Jaytwist (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Story of a Small Town

Merger of Small Town Story (song) was reverted. So I created another discussion. Feel free to comment in talk page. --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin

I'd appreciate if you would take another look at the RfC discussion on the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. In your 16 August post, you said that your recommendation for the RfC would depend on what additional information was presented. I proposed specific text for consideration shortly afterward in the discussion thread that I hope you will comment on. Dezastru (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pixar Theory

As the concept of a Pixar Universe preceded the Negroni thesis by a decade, I seek your opinion about THIS. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I can fold my little sourced article into the main topic Pixar and we'd have a suitable redirect target for The Pixar Theory? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with a merge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Gladiators events.

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlaspheres, I have deleted all of the listed articles. I have also proposed to merge List of American Gladiators events with List of Gladiators UK events, as the materials onthose pages are largely duplicative. Based on your participation in the deletion discussion, you may also wish to participate in the merge discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gladiator (1986 film)

I wish to let you know that "substantial" is NOT a requirement of WP:SIGCOV. Per that guideline, and accepted by WP:NFF, "significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. User:Taylor Trescott provided some quite decent, non-trivial sources, meeting the definition under SIGCOV. Article improvement is now underway and I am myself looking for more. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Sorcerer Barnstar

Hello, sorry that I couldn't get back earlier to you, I've been busy writing my master's thesis but now I officially graduated! So thank you for your kind words and I'll try contribute even more! Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review

Ninja, There's a deletion review for the Nathaniel Raymond article. Your comments at the AfD are discussed. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_October_17 DavidinNJ (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I'm tempted to just ignore it and let the drama play out without my involvement, but I may comment if I can think of something civil and relevant to add. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Information request.

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sortable list of Attorneys-General of Australia, I have requested some information from you, (should you be in the mood to provide it). Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

First off, I'd like to apologize for giving you any potential stress related to Wikipedia, as I see that you're already on a Wikibreak. My comments in that discussion were not meant as criticism of your actions, but I see now that they could easily be taken that way. Wikipedia can be arcane and bureaucratic, and investigating its inner workings can only lead to disillusionment. I can understand wanting to avoid bureaucracy and overly critical people, but Wikipedia has tightened its rules on article creation over the years. When I said that consensus should have been sought, what I meant was to bring up a discussion on the talk page of the original article. WP:BRD is not policy, but it's a helpful essay on this situation. Basically, editors are encouraged to make bold changes to articles (such as making tables sortable), but when other editors take exception to those changes, the matter should be brought up for discussion on the talk page. One possible route is through a request for comments, where uninvolved editors are solicited for opinions. I can help you with that, if you'd like, but it might be easier to just make a suggestion and see what other people think. Maybe the person who reverted the edit has changed his/her mind or lost interest in the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What a remarkably civil reply! Thank you!! As is often the case, it's past bedtime here - I'll reply further tomorrow. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Request to reconsider your AfD

Hello, you recently created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roedy Green (2nd nomination). I have re-written the article Roedy Green and think that many of the concerns you mentioned at the AfD may have been addressed. If you have a moment, please review the new version of the article and revisit your !vote at the AfD if your mind has changed. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, and with all due respect for your work at locating sources and rewriting the article, I have the same concerns as PeteBaltar and Green Cardamom. I would feel better about changing my vote if, instead of multiple clams of debatable significance, the article offered a single strong claim to notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Scope and title for Bisexuality in the Arab world

During the recent AfD for Bisexuality in the Arab world (closed as 'keep') you will either have seen opinions expressed to expand the scope of the article, or voiced that opinion yourself. I am placing this notice on the talk pages of all who expressed an opinion of whatever type in that deletion discussion to invite you to participate in a discussion on article scope and title at Talk:Bisexuality in the Arab world. You are cordially invited to participate. By posting this message I am not seeking to influence your opinion one way or another. Fiddle Faddle 10:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Request

I would like to ask that you review and comment on this proposal on the Talk:Captain_Phillips_(film) page. Thanks - thewolfchild 19:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your kind comments here. Apparently I posted my review request in the wrong forum. In any case, due to the bullying in question from the other user and the various sockpuppets supporting him, I have elected to depart WP for the time being. Unfortunately, it just doesn't appear I am able to participate in the Ronan Farrow entry without becoming subject to intense abuse by the other editor and an evolving cast of sockpuppets. In any case, the reason I really wanted to comment is to let you know that the "other registered user" the editor in question kept referencing as also decrying my edits as disruptive has just been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet (the ninth so far) so your instinct was correct and I thank you much for expressing it. I hope someday someone has the courage to address the very strange behavior occurring in that entry by an established editor and an almost endless string of socks ... I thought it was me, but - alas - it's not. King regards, BlueSalix (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

As an independent, longtime Wikipedia editor with a constructive reputation, unaffiliated with the socks in any way, I need to point out that despite BlueSalix's self-serving assertions, no one ever "bullied" him or subjected him to "intense abuse." Those are false accusations, and serious ones. The Ronan Farrow talk-page discussions are available for anyone to read, as are, via history, posts BlueSalix deleted on his own talk page.

Additionally, BlueSalix has just taken a highly in appropriate action in asking admin Someguy1212 here to roll back Ronan Farrow to his own preferred version as an end-run to avoid other editors and an RfC that was going against him. Many of Blue Salix's own edits have been biased, one-sided attacking edits that clearly appear to be based on his own personal disagreements with the article subject's politics. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice on Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia

Hello, I would like to inform you that a requested move proposal has been started on the Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia talk page. I have sent you this message since you are a user who has participated in one or more of these discussions. Thank you for reading this message. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

List of Zombie Films

Hi, I have swept through the List of zombie films and added references. Please take a look as well as the Disputed section in talk. Thanks. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. Good job. I got bored and moved on after I found references for what I considered to be the most important films. I'd hold off on moving more films out of this master list, as I'm going to try to get everything merged into it; however, you're free to do what you will, of course. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Removing outside wiki site from Shroud of the Avatar

Just stopping back in to reference you two different articles that offer validity to http://sotawiki.net/ - Both coming from the Shroud of the Avatar main site: https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?p=34637 and https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?p=34688. Let me know when you're ready to acknowledge this site and it's validity as it is 100% in accordance with all wikipedia rules that I can find. Alternatively please point me to the rule that shows it should not be listed. Thanks!

Bold words response

That time, I had to link shadow somewhere. If you'd like to link it to any other shadow on the Shadow person page, go right ahead. Rtkat3 (talk) 3:57, December 9 2013 (UTC)

Sure, there's nothing wrong with linking to shadow, but it breaks the Manual of Style to link bold words. Preferably, the next occurrence should be linked. Per WP:OVERLINK, I usually don't bother to link common English words, but it's not a big deal. 21:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Frankenstein Theory

That wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen. Karl was pretty cool--pity he died off-camera. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I really disliked it the first time I watched it. When I had trouble remembering the plot details, I rewatched it, and I liked it significantly more that time. I agree – Karl was pretty cool. After I worked on that article, I debated creating articles on Timothy V. Murphy and Joe Egender, but I couldn't find any good sources, and it's difficult to make the argument that they're movie stars. Oh well. Some day. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Civil Affairs Staging Area

Great job on the spacing. The article looks much better! Nvidia9 (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a very in-depth article, but I think Wikipedia's unforgiving rendering has made it a little unwieldy. Wikipedia will render everything as a single, long paragraph if you let it, so sometimes you have to make the paragraph breaks a bit more obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Kwartet Deletion

Hey could you userfy the article for The Kwartet that was deleted by SpacemanSpiff? I tried contacting spacemanspiff, but he is not active anymore. As I said on his page, I just saw the Kwartet live and they were fantastic. I'm sure that I could find more sources and help clean up the previous article. Thanks for any help! - Hicham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hicham Riyad (talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hell (2011 film)

Hi. Thanks for expanding the article. Please note that the parent country categories (in thise case German films, Swiss films) should be included on all film articles per WP:FILMCAT, as they are non-diffusing. Per the category page itself "For convenience, all Swiss films are included in this category. This includes all Swiss films that can also be found in the subcategories." If you have a question about this, please raise it with the Film Project. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Huh. OK. I guess I need to read the fine print of the categories more often. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm So Sorry

NinjaRobotPirate I apologize for my mistake. It was happened by mistake and I accepted that and I assure you that you never get any fault next time. I hope you will accept my apologize. Sajid.mumbai ♥ (talk) 13.11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Hi there, thank you for your comment of Talk:Orthodox Presbyterian Church. I'm unsure how to move the comments or the RFC to achieve what you asked for and it wasn't my intention to include that whole discussion in the RFC. Could you explain how to do it, it's my first time using the template. SPACKlick (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that really long discussions tend to discourage outside output. For this reason, people often choose to break RfCs into multiple sections. For example, check out WP:RFC#Example, which has sections for a survey and discussion. Comments like mine, which express support or opposition for the proposition, would go in the Survey section. Debate would go in the Discussion section, where it could be safely ignored by editors uninterested in reading through it. I don't think it would be controversial to move both of your comments to a discussion section, but you never know when someone might take offense. That's why I suggested that you both voluntarily agree to do so. Of course, I probably shouldn't talk about cleaning up untidy talk pages; my own user talk page needs to be cleaned up, but I've been too lazy to remove all the bot spam. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've edited the talk page and will move your vote into the survey section. If you object to this please feel free to undo. SPACKlick (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks much better to me. My comment looks a bit weird complaining about nonexistent problems, so I'll probably edit it later. Or maybe not. I don't know. I'm lazy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion for Kentaro Sato

Greetings: I'm the nominator for deletion of article Kentaro Sato. My reasons for doing so were stated at this page which you have visited and where you have cast a vote favoring deletion. I felt it was my responsibility to make sure we don't delete a valuable WP article if there is any chance the subject is notable. So I carried out a quick web search and collected what I've found at the article's talk page. Since you have taken part and voted in the recent process could you take a look at the data I've gathered and let me know what you think and if that changes your position. I appreciate your help. Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 05:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Halloween

Hello, I see you revert my changes to the Halloween. I removed those four categories because Halloween is filed under the parent category Category:Halloween (franchise) which IS filed under those four categories. So, Halloween is listed under those categories twice now, once as an article filed under Category:Halloween (franchise) and once on its own. This double categorization is to be avoided on Wikipedia except for non-diffusing categories (mostly those involving gender and race). Please see WP:Categorization if you are not aware of category guidelines.

For example, if there is an article titled "Weather in Albany" it would be filed under the category "Weather in New York State" which is then filed under the category "Weather in the United States". But "Weather in Albany" isn't filed under the category "Weather in the United States" because it is already filed under the child category "Weather in New York State". Categories are built upon a hierarchical taxonomy. If there WASN'T a Category:Halloween (franchise), then it would be fine to file the individual movie under those four categories but since there is a parent category that includes all Halloween movies, we don't categorize, in addition, each separate movie under those same categories that apply to Category:Halloween (franchise) because that is redundant categorization. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Liz: For an eponymous category, it's optional whether they are removed from parent categories. For example, The Terminator, Terminator 2, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film), and Alien (film), which are all Good articles, duplicate the categories in their eponymous category. I can't offhand find any Featured film articles which do so. I'd suggest you start a discussion on the talk page. At the very least, I'm leaning toward keeping Halloween in "slasher films" because it's one of the most iconic slasher films ever made and a rare example that received critical acclaim. People are going to expect to find it there. I don't care as much about the other redundant categories, to be honest. Thanks for the note, and I hope that I don't come across as too stubborn on this issue. I'm not going to edit war over this, and I'll go with whatever the consensus is. I'd prefer it be discussed at WP:FILM or the article's talk page before we remove those categories, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Cvilleslacker

I'm fairly sure that the IP address is the same user. I've left a message on his page asking him politely to not continue to vandalize the article because quite frankly, this sort of thing can end up being career suicide if they make a huge deal out of only having positive reviews and wanting to remove any evidence of negative reviews. I'll ask for a page protection for the article, although they may say that this is too soon for protection. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your RfA support

Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your support at my recent RfA. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. Thank you for your thoughtful reply, which I felt was chock full of reality check. Anyhow, greatly appreciated. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Electrick Children

The page move of Electrick Children from AFC seems to have left categories in the article which are not visible in the edit screen. You seem to have removed one of them (2013 films) with this edit, but the other one, (English-language films), is preventing cats from being in alphabetical order. When I edited to put them in order, they appeared in order on the Preview screen, but after I clicked "Save", English-language had gone back to second place again. Do you know how to fix this? 86.41.42.29 (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks OK to me. template:filmdate automatically adds a special category, and I changed the release date from 2013 to 2012. That's why it got removed from 2013 films. The language parameter of the infobox also adds the language category automatically and overrides your placement. I gave up a long time ago trying to force the categories to display how I wanted them, and I guess I developed a rather idiosyncratic style that is unsupported by guidelines. I once thought category:American films was redundant, too, but, as you can see from my talk page, another user recently set me straight me straight on that. It's unintuitive, but consensus is that we include it. I'm not the most prolific content creator, but I'm fairly experienced -- and I still learn new things constantly. It takes a while to get the hang of all these arcane rules, guidelines, consensus-based conventions, and script-based side-effects. If that's your first article, then you did an amazing job. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Well, I guess I'm still learning too. Thanks for taking the trouble to explain all that to me. And sorry for not adding a heading to this. I was completely unaware of the omission. 86.41.42.29 (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Follow up on your opinion re Jennifer Government: NationStates's "Possible Abuse" section

You commented on Talk:Jennifer Government: NationStates, particularly the deleted "Possible Abuse" section. As a new editor, I would greatly appreciate further comment, more information, or some advice regarding this article and this issue -- particularly as I and another editor have added unanswered comments. Essentially, the "Possible Abuse" section meets WP:VERIFY/WP:RS and the rest of the article really does not. After a month (in which NS staff have commented on this issue) no new sources have been added to the original article and none are likely to be. WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS indicates that rules of NS, events on NS, announcements by the site owner, etc., are best sourced from NS itself. WP:3PARTY will almost never exist. What are your thoughts? Assuming I wish to follow-up, I assume reversing the edit deleting the Possible Abuse section would be bad form. Should I seek WP:DR and, if so, how? Thank you in advance for your time and any assistance. --Po-tee-weet (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, many people would probably consider me a hardliner on these issues. You'd probably find a more sympathetic ear from an inclusionist. You're right that not every element of an article needs to be sourced from third party, reliable sources, but the vast majority of content generally should. It not only gives us an idea of how much coverage we should give individual elements but also gives us the proper perspective. If independent, reliable sources – and forum posts are not reliable sources – do not cover a controversy, then we don't, either. Remember, just because something is true doesn't mean that it's automatically included in an article. Wikipedia really isn't the place to air grievances or call attention to wrong-doing; that's what blogs are for. Dispute resolution is generally the way to go, but I don't think you're going to find much help there; this is pretty much a textbook example of a non-notable controversy. I'll comment further on the article's talk page, and maybe we can get this article in better shape. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Barbarella

Who's "edit waring"? Not I. Simply following well established Wikipedia policy regarding "trivia", which the section in question clearly resembles. Quite frankly, it should be removed. Calling a section something it is not simply to allow its continued - dubious - presence is disingenuous (a polite was of saying dishonest). And since when does questionable "consensus" on a Talk Page that is contrary to well established Wikipedia policy trump well established Wikipedia policy? Thanks for your interest Taco Viva (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It's likely to be removed, as there's a developing consensus on the talk page to remove it. It would be helpful if you added your opinion to the talk page so that a clearer consensus could be established. If you choose not to do so, that's fine, but repeatedly reverting the edits of other users will not make the trivia section disappear any faster. It will only attract the attention of administrators. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Richie Rich's page.

Hello NinjaRobotPirate, what's good. I saw you made a lot of edits in Richie's page, apart from that, I haven't published anything by myself on any site. I just had to complete Richie's credits on some songs (confirmed) and fill all these empty information. And please explain me what Richie's page has to do with advertisements and deletion nomination. Richie isn't published on any newspaper or magazine nowadays, but his former music group "LA Dream Team" is published in a .pdf file. Thank you. I'd like to get help from you so I can keep Richie's legacy, he means so much to me.

Regards, OGmuthafkkinDoc (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! You've done good work on that article, but it has a few issues that need to be resolved. The first one is that it's a bit too promotional. Wikipedia strives to maintain a neutral point of view, where subjects are described factually and without personal opinion. Basically, what this means is that we take what professional journalists and other reliable sources say, rework it into an admittedly bland style of writing, and tell readers where we found the information. You've already mastered some of that already.

The line about "70,000 screaming fans" is a bit over-the-top, and it unduly promotes the subject. A better way to say it might be "He performed in front of crowds that numbered up to 70,000." That's just as impressive and true, but it omits the promotional language. I'd try to avoid overuse of adverbs, adjectives, and other modifiers, as they can make the article look like a fan site. Statements of fact should generally be followed by citations to reliable sources, such as professional journalists. It can be frustrating to dig up citations for stuff we know to be true, but people would not trust Wikipedia without these citations.

Speaking of which, the citations should not be to user-generated content, because we can't trust what's found on those sites. The IMDb, for example, is a useful resource, but it is not reliable enough to use as a source in a biography. The deletion discussion will last a week, though it can be extended at the discretion of the administrators. Editors will debate whether the article follows our guidelines. The most relevant guideline is WP:MUSICBIO, which generally requires reliable sources. However, you might be able to make an argument based on his early innovations to hip hop. The best thing you can do right now is to locate articles on Richie Rich located in the archives of music magazines. I hope this helps. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Richie Rich's page

AYo Ninja, what's good. Thanks for reaching out to me, I understand the problem for the reliable sources. As for the advertisements, feel free to remove anything that not decent and that's related to be considered as a advertisement. Richie may be not featured on any magazine or any newspaper yet, but he is featured with LA Dream Team through historical photos and old magazines in a .pdf files from the Westcoastpioneers.com page. I appreciate your help, I want to keep his legacy, he's an Hiphop icon to me, you know.

Third-party sources: Joe Serious CD, Album (the frontback cover is small, but he is listed in, I can't find anything apart from that) Snake Puppy of LA Dream Team personal myspace

Note that I am contacting actually the members, I can get you through magazines of 80's and 90's.

Regards, OGmuthafkkinDoc (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, that sounds great. If you can find magazine coverage on him, the Wikipedia article will definitely be saved. Two other potential source are the Google News Archive and Google Books. I didn't see anything when I searched, but maybe you can find information that I missed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

About Richie Rich's page

Hello NinjaRobotPirate, what's good fam. Recently I updated Richie's page and his production discography (I talked with him personally and that's not the complete discography yet), please, help me to remove these warning signs. I'd appreciate that, you can Richie's notability with other rappers by typing "The Real Richie Rich of LA Dream Team". I did a search to match Richie's magazine coverage, but I couldn't find anything else on Google other than L.A. Dream Teams sources. Richie may start to take interviews and getting up on reliable sources soon. Check this video on Youtube with Richie and Hip Hop legend DJ Quik together in the studio, he is notable. Thank you very much.

Regards, OGmuthafkkinDoc (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

>:(

Hi, this is the guy who created the The Possessed article. Did I ever give you permission to finish the page for me?! Don't get me wrong, thank you. But I was the one who wanted to add the cast and stuff. I should've said not to edit it.... I have tried to create millions of wiki articles but all of them have gotten rejected. And also, I wanted to be the one to add the other stuff. I will delete the stuff that you edited and the n redo it so I could feel better :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.196.59.32 (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Asdified: Uh, no you won't. If you erase everything that I added, would be vandalism. If you don't want people to edit articles you create, then make a blog. This is a collaborative wiki. I assume this is a message from User:Asdified, who created the article. Please remember to sign your posts, and, preferably, stay logged in when leaving messages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

what?

Are you spying me or somethin'??? Asdified (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Asdified: In a way. In your previous message, you indicated that you might blank a page. As a result of that, I have kept an eye on your contributions. You later blanked a separate article, and I reverted that. I'm not going to follow you around revert your edits, if that's what you're worried about. But I probably will keep an eye out for any further page blanking. In the future, please use the "add a new section" link at the top of the page. Manually adding new comments to the middle of the page makes it difficult to locate them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Maya the Bee (character)

Hi, why you do stub from this article and delete text from it? Now in this article almost none informations. Your last edit i seems that unconstructive.--Včelka Mája 2 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It was incomprehensible and full of original research. And you're a sock puppet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

And book is what? It not source or it prohibited source?--Včelka Mája 2 (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hi Ninjarobotpirate, thank you so much for your help with cleaning up referances and also all the info you left on my messages regarding Lizzie gough. Yes I am a new user and was not too sure on how to contact people such as yourself for the questions brought up / talkpage and tried to clean up everything I could so that it did not look like a resumé or for promotion as this is not my intention. I am writing on the behalf of someone else with this page and would like to say this is not an autobiography however not too sure on how to prove this. You kindly added referances/citations (which I tried to do and have more to add) to show that this page is a real person has been very helpful. Your feedback is very important as I do not want to make the same mistake as want to make it as neutral and as factual as possible (hopefully I have done this right by writing here to yourself) Do you think I should delete this page and put it in Articles for Creation now or how can I make this page suitable for wikipedia (Lizzie Gough (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)) your help is appreciated.

@Lizzie Gough: I'm glad I was able to help; I don't mind looking up citations or copy editing. You've done a good job so far, but your user name is a bit troublesome. It gives the impression that Ms. Gough herself is editing the article. If that's not the case, then I don't have a problem with removing the "autobiography" template. The first thing you should do is read our rules on conflicts of interest. If that doesn't apply to you – in other words, you have no personal or professional relationship with Ms. Gough – then you might consider changing your user name to something a bit less likely to draw suspicion. Most people are simply going to assume that you are Ms. Gough. The article is fairly well written, and it obeys our policies; my biggest problem was that someone might be trying to conceal a conflict of interest. I'm a bit ambivalent about the "like a resume" template, but the article has been cleaned up substantially, so I don't see a problem with removing it. However, it's customary to at least give some sort of indication as to why you're doing something when you make these kinds of changes. For example, in the edit summary, you could write, "The article has been substantially improved and no longer looks like a resume". That would alert other editors that you have a specific reason for removing the template; without an edit summary, other editors are left to simply guess at your intentions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You did a brilliant job...

…at the Nazanin A-J article, simply brilliant. Could you consider, at some point, similar attention at the Nazanin Fatehi article? The two personae are linked by the interest that NA-J expressed in NF, in her time of need. The sourcing at NF is substandard, in part, because original referencing at the NF article was mostly derived from articles about NA-J. Any improvements to the NF site, on par with the quality that you introduced at the NA-J article are sorely needed. Note, at the NF article, I did open and read all articles that time permitted, and moved to talk all broken links, or citations whose content did not match statements in the article. Even so, it is neither my specialty or interest, and so still needs much work. Note, I do think that both sites deserve a full citation to the Tale of Two Nazanins book that NA-J co-authored. I also believe both sites deserve a serious book review element, good and bad. These were attempted in citations 9-12 in an earlier version of the NA-J article. (The negative review, in particular, was not a good source, but it is certainly indicative of the reservations some might have regarding the attention that NA-J paid to NF. For balance, if such a good source exists, it should be identified.) Again, bravo, merci, for the hard and productive work done on the NA-J article. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for saying so, but once you know where (and how) to look, it's more time consuming than difficult. To Become familiar with Wikipedia's arcane and bureaucratic policies can take even more patience. Luckily, I can be patient when necessary. I may look at that other article, too. I agree that balance and neutrality are needed, but it's best to be highly selective about sources when one writes a biography. Wikipedia has rather strict policies on that. I did a cursory look for criticism and reviews, but I eventually lost interest and focused instead on fixing the citations, which seemed to be a more pressing issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

See my response asking for the book to come back at Nazanin? Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ninja, if you do make it to the NF article, one last note (begun earlier, but lost during a transition): The reason, at the NF site, for all the "citation needed" tags, is to mark places where an earlier unacceptable citation was removed. If you look to the Talk, you will see two things:

• (i) A series of Talk sections listing broken links, or citations otherwise seriously problematic; I moved all these to Talk out of respect for earlier contributing editors, so that these issues could be addressed. Hence, there are near to a score of "citation needed" tags that appear, stemming from these removed dead or unreliable citations; and
• (ii) Somewhere in the latter part of the Talk, (you'll see) a note indicating that I removed a translated Iranian newspaper article (from Etemaad) from the reference list, as an unacceptable source. The reason was that the translation appeared at an NF advocacy web page, entitled "save.nazanin". Tens of lines of text all cited this potentially biased translation in an earlier version of the article, and this tagged, unreferenced text remains in the NF article today. I have prompted the individual creating the NF article originally, to identify and provide an independent translation of the same Etemaad article. To date I seen no response. If no reliable source can be found for the original Etemaad material, the article will have to be gutted for that content (because it is a unique source, with quotes and factual information I have found nowhere else).

Bottom line, this is going to be a challenging article to turn around. I am not willing to do more, because at my very appearance, there are certain editors that will rush in to revert (I perceive). If the important NF article gets turned around, it will because others who are trusted to make major changes take the initiative. Best wishes. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal of JOttawa16

I have started a topic ban proposal of JOttawa16, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal to ban JOttawa16 from political articles. JDDJS (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Message Received

Can I ask why this change on Message Received at the reception, references and External links section? ALL episodes' articles of Modern Family follow that format. Thanks. TeamGale 20:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@TeamGale: Amazon.com is not a valid external link; if it's in the other articles, it should be removed. "Critical acclaim" is puffery. Unless a reliable source says that the reception was "critically acclaimed", we can not state this. Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, and other review aggregators are a good source of commentary on critical reception, but it is not for Wikipedia to synthesize what the reception was. As for changing the <references/> to {{reflist}}, that's a matter of preference and style. Changing from one style to another needlessly is unproductive; and, yes, I realize that I'm not making it any more productive. I probably should have just left that alone. You can change that back if you want. it was probably silly of me to insist on going back to my style. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. When I started adding the links I didn't have any problem or no one told me that they were not valid for WP. I am still kind of new and still learning. I'll go back and remove them in the first chance. For the "critical acclaim" I personally don't use it..only positive/mixed/negative..is that also not valid if there is no reference to the sites you are referring? Thanks again for all the help. TeamGale 21:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@TeamGale: Well, I'm a bit of a hardliner on many of these issues, and many editors will let them pass. "Critical acclaim" in particular has come under a degree of controversy; you can see a discussion in this archived thread from April 2014. There wasn't any official consensus in this discussion, but it gives an idea how people feel about it. I have advocated for a rather hardline interpretation of policy that requires people to come up with sources for any statements made about reception, but this is not universally accepted. You're probably fine saying, "It had a mixed reception" or "It was received well by critics" or whatever, but I'd avoid any loaded words like "acclaim", "hail", or "rave". External links can be contentious, and it's difficult to convince hardliners (like me) that links to Amazon.com are legitimate. In general, it's best to stick with the official site, aggregators, major databases, and maybe one major fansite. Beyond that, it starts to get cluttered. Unreliable sources that offer unique information can also be listed as external links, since they don't qualify as references. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the link with the discussion. I couldn't go through all of it but I got the general spirit and I found myself agreeing in many things. That's why I never used "big" words to the critical reception sections and stayed to "positive/mixed/negative" based on the reviews I cite below. I'll stay with those. As for the external links...I started removing the ones I added and I know about...it will take a while to get to all, wish I could know sooner but it's OK. Thanks again for all your help. TeamGale 16:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that WP might come up with a consensus on a reliable aggregator, and then agree to some criteria for its statements, e.g., if Rotten Tomatoes were chosen, one might be able to say "positive reviews" if above 65% of Top Critics, negative if below 35% of same, mixed in between; universally acclaimed if above 90% positive of same, and vice versa. 87%? "approaching universal acclaim (87% approval of Top critics at Rotten Tomatoes"). That is to say, the phrases can have meaning, if we imbue them with such. Sorry, in addition to being a very hard-headed scientific citation guy, I have also have done a little consulting with filmmakers. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Smoke 180

Hey there Bro (sis?) - I undid a revision you made for smoke180. I am not an experienced wikipedian and mostly only edit minor spelling mistakes. A heavy user, I am though, as you are, but clearly contribute more. I wanted to explain why I undid'er. I was looking the company to get it for my boy friend's mom who is a heavy-heavy smoker (on his behalf, yes he missed mothers day so to speak). My brother who was a 23 year smokers is off it thanks to smoke180. I saw them on CTV weeks ago and apparently our cousin is using it too. Now I have not read wikipedia policies but a company that truly touches my life, specially something that is going to help my family members be better, is notable, at least to me. My brother says he tried two other companies and these guys are different. I also looked up the sources and they seem all credible and say the same things i have heard of them. Just my two cents. I'm all emo just having learned that my brother has been cigarette free for exactly 60 days, the max he has gone, ever in last 20+ years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.129.210 (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I also have a similar experience. My dad was43 year smoker. I did extensive research on compamies and these guys seemed most trustworthy and NOTABLE. Anything that saves lives already has some level ofnotability. I am disappointed in your judgement and lack of understandingof what 180smoke is doing. Perhaps you don't value life as much as I do now that I see my dad and his friends switchingover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.175.145 (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice

A discussion closely related to one you recently participated in is ongoing here:

Talk:Assault weapons legislation in the United States#Move/Rename compromise

Your participation would be welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Jan Johnstone

Hi NinjaRobotPirate

Thanks for taking the time to review the article I created.  I certainly agree with you that it falls into the stub category at this point; but I have to disagree with your assessment that it doesn't meet WP's notability standards.
I only considered creating the article after verifying that the subject met the basic criteria, with independent news coverage by a local newspaper (Goderich Signal-Star^[1]), a regional radio chain (Bayshore Broadcasting^[2]), and one of Canada's three national media outlets (CBC News^[3]) and that she is the sole focus of two of the articles and shares the spotlight with her daughter in the third.  Granted, the coverage is all political in nature; but with the exception of the Rob Ford's of the world, few politicians or political hopefuls ever have (or want) any other kind.  I refer to WP:POLITICIAN which states, “…such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".”  I submit that, in this case, there is that sufficient reliable, independent coverage.
I hope you'll reconsider those factors and, if you agree, remove the {{Notability}} hat from the article.  If not then I guess the most appropriate step is to move the conversation to the talk page and RfC/BIO it.  Thanks once again for your time.  Cheers — Who R you? Talk 01:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

¹ Dave Flaherty (May 12, 2014). "Kincardine's Jan Johnstone to represent NDP in Huron–Bruce". Goderich Signal-Star. Retrieved May 22, 2014.
² Peter Jackson (May 8, 2014). "NDP to Elect Huron–Bruce Rep". Bayshore Broadcasting. Retrieved May 22, 2014.
³ "Mother daughter duo running for NDP in provincial election". CBC News. May 15, 2014. Retrieved May 22, 2014.

@Who R you?: She's a school board trustee who is running for office. That's the sort of bio that would usually get brought up to articles for deletion, but she's got a bit of national coverage. I think that at least makes it debatable, and I'm willing to let others decide the issue. Local newspapers routinely report on candidates, so a local paper isn't much help in terms of notability. If you think she's notable, then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to locate another third party source. That would be the most preferable way to solve the issue; an RFC is kind of overkill. Normally, when I tag a page with notability concerns and someone removes it, I nominate it for AfD. In this case, I'd probably just let it go. I don't think it'd be worth going through the bother of AfD for such a borderline case. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Cult Film Animation

Hello, I am contacting you concerning the addition of "The Thief and the Cobbler" on the animation section of the Cult Film page the first article cited clearly considered it to have a cult following as well as explaining its reasons for being so, did you consider there to be anything wrong with the source? http://manvsart.com/man-vs-art-episode-66-the-thief-and-the-cobbler/#.U4dQXHaAPwo

The amount added had about the same amount of information as the section had on Ralph Bakshi, do you consider it less relevant to the subject? I hope I do not come across as rude. I will not attempt to add it back on the page unless it meets your approval.

Thank you in advance Elixe54 (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Elixe54: I'd suggest you go to the article's talk page, as I suggested. There's already a discussion there. Consensus so far is that it's undue and the sources are not reliable enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

B movie

I noted that you removed a paragraph of material from B movie, regarding the Mockbuster, and the works of Bruno Mattei. The reason for the Unsourced Research of the Material. Understandable. So, I got sources and referenced them using the reference endnote system. I figured you might like to know what I did and why. The Saxon (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Saxonjf: Sprinkling trivial mentions throughout your original research that don't back it up is basically synthesis. This is a featured article, and it requires a much higher standard of sourcing than an ordinary article. I would suggest you also go the associated talk page and seek consensus for your addition. You can't just add whatever pops into your mind into a featured article; if everyone did that, the articles would get delisted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC) [slight edits for clarity on 11:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)]

We Are What We Are (2013 film).

Raised a discussion on the talkpage. I look forward to your input. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Metacritic's "normalized" scores

Despite Metacritic's claims, their scores are not "normalized". Please see WT:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 6#Metacritic's so-called "normalized" scores. Thanks. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, nobody really knows exactly what they do. I think what Metacritic does is to normalize the scores by critic and then report a weighted average. But since you raise the issue, I'll try to avoid any discussion of normalization. Who knows what they do with their black box. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right, they don't give details about what they describe as "normalize". It doesn't seem to be a simple average, so "weighted average" is probably the best way to describe it. Happy editing! 75.177.156.78 (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Sean Scanlan

Perhaps you can explain what I did that was so offensive (see the diff here) as to warrant such an intense response. My understanding was that articles relating to individuals, topics, themes, incidents from outside North America were dd/mm/yyyy formatting. I notice you haven't reverted. Are you waiting for me to do so? I don't think it's necessary but if you choose to do so I won't touch it again. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Well, I must come across as too intense, then. I apologize for the tone of my message. No, I'm not going to revert your edit, and I don't expect you to revert it, either. The issue is that I chose ISO 8601 date format for the citations, which I generally do whenever there isn't an established date format. Some people may think it looks a bit ugly, but it's a neutral format that avoids the issue of American/European date formats, it saves a bit of space, and it's faster for me to type. It's a bit frustrating when people come in and change the citation style, date format, etc., but it's hardly something that I'm going to edit war over. There's nothing wrong with unifying dates, but it's best to leave an established style alone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. Quis separabit? 18:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Erased

Hi,

I see you noticed the removal of information on the "Eraser" page. I've noticed that the screenwriter's other credits and wikipedia page have also been unexplainably, suspiciously whitewashed. I think someone close to the screenwriter or the screenwriter himself has removed the unflattering - and real - reception to his movies. Could you have a look at the Arash Amel and Grace of Monaco edit history to see if you agree with me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.39.8 (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you're right. This IP editor has been removing negative reviews from multiple films for a while now. It looks like these articles need a close eye. I'll add them to my watchlist. It looks like there might be a conflict of interest here, or, at the very least, a obsessed fanboy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi again,

Thanks for warning the man and adding the articles to your watchlist. Unfortunately the edits have continued. I'm trying to present everything from a neutral point of view, which sadly does include the reception that the writer and his movies have received (only negative so far sadly). I've requested the Arash Amel page to be protected.

Let me know your opinions, you clearly know a lot more about Wikipedia than me (I'm a newbie!)

Thanks!

Removal of "h-llywood zap" from "list of cult films"

removal of "h-llywood zap" from "list of cult films"

Hello, Mr. Pirate...

Nice page you have here!

With all due respect, I don't think you understand the concept of "cult film." Those are movies unappreciated by the masses, with a small fervent following. Not well known, unlike hugely successful films that have been mistakenly listed in the category.

If anything, I would suggest the removal of at least 35% of films listed, since they transcend the true definition of the "cult" category, insofar as being major commercial successes.

My youngest son would inform you that, if you were to visit a a random number of fraternities in the eastern / southeastern USA states, you would find the film you removed is very popular, in which students chug beer to every "fart" sounded in the film, and I think there are a grand total of some 27 farts, so that makes for some very happy students. Now THAT is a genuine cult film!

The film also was featured countless times on USA Up All Night, introduced by such "fans" as Gilbert Gottfried and Rhonda Shear:

http://0fftheair.wordpress.com/usa-up-all-night/

I have no skin in the game, it's an old film, and I've never been able find out much info about the pervs who created it --for one thing, it appears 90% of the cast died years ago, but I got a big kick out of the thing in my younger years attending (or should I say, "partying")at college in Southern Florida. Hell, that film was doing Howard Stern before Howard Stern began to do Howard Stern!

CategorySelector3 (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@CategorySelector3: I suggest that you read Cult film. It's a rather long article (around 9000 words now), but it explains in detail what a cult film is and the controversy that exists about the definition. After writing a 9000 word article on the subject, I think I do indeed understand what a cult film is. The problem, however, is not what I think. It's what reliable sources say. Articles on Wikipedia are not based on opinion; they are sourced to professionally written articles from reliable sources. Forum posts, blogs, your own experiences, etc, are all forbidden. This is not a list of someone's favorite films; it is a list of films identified by professional journalists as cult films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I did read the article and this is my response. When John Waters first began making his films, he could not obtain any kind of mainstream reviews about his cult pictures. In fact, the mainstream journalists considered his films to be effectively pornographic. Only when Waters finally signed with a major studio distributor did the mainstream professional journalist sources you so revere finally cover the man's films. Even though Tr-ma undeniably has the largest list of genuine cult films in America today, the company has been unable to obtain much in the way of mainstream coverage. The major studios control the big media sources in every aspect, one grand collection of media whoores who must sell their souls to the major studios if they wish to work at the most renowned journalistic vehicles.

The reality is that your stated fervent philosophy is an oxymoron, as follows: "it is a list of films identified by professional journalists as cult films." Genuine cult films never gain their following thanks to "professional journalists," they gain their following through word of mouth and underground, non-mainstream sources.

Sorry but you can write an extra 9000 words on the topic, but from my perspective, you are wrong as wrong can be.

One final question: why does Wikipedia so quickly expunge material such as the listing you erased within 24 hours of its appearance, while allowing multi-thousands of listings labeled with all variety of Wiki violations and warnings (e.g. NPOV, Unsourced, etc) to rest upon Wikipedia for years and years? I still see countless listings on Wikipedia that were warned years ago they are in violation of Wiki standards, yet somehow nobody ever removes them.

So tell me...why did that particular listing of a film released some 30 years ago and placed within a relatively esoteric Wikipedia category, "List of Cult Films," find itself removed so quickly? Did one of the major studios protest strongly and alert "the troops?"

Enquiring minds would like to know.

CategorySelector3 (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@CategorySelector3: Please don't put extra colons in every paragraph. It makes your posts very difficult to read. I have edited the comment to remove the extraneous colons. I don't even know what you're talking about when you say that I'm wrong; I told you how Wikipedia works, and I'm right about that. If you have an issue with how Wikipedia works, I suggest you take it up somewhere else, because I don't make the rules. If reliable sources do not exist, content can not be added to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias do not publish original thought; they only collate information from secondary sources, such as professional journalists, books, and scholarly articles. If you want to post your own list of favorite films with your own idiosyncratic inclusion criteria, post it on a blog somewhere. Wikipedia is not the place for that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: You did not answer any of the questions raised, instead you redirected the argument into an attack upon usage of colons in my rejoinder, which is strange, given that other Wiki editors often utilize the same style. Then you proceeded to retaliate against the Wikipedia listing (H-llywood Zap) in question by expunging the following New York Times link, (that you erroneously claim to be "inactive"), but that provides the kind of mainstream legitimacy that undermines your argument, the link as follows: <http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/22797/Hollywood-Zap/overview> To reiterate, when I say you are wrong, what I mean is that all genuine cult films are born OUTSIDE the realm of mainstream media, aka Big Media, they are spawned by word of mouth and underground sources. Once they become commercial successes, if at all, then by extrapolation, they are no longer cult films and that is an irrefutable example of syllogistic reasoning.

@CategorySelector3: First, you don't need to use {{reply to}} on my own talk page. It's redundant. Second, I answered your questions that pertain to Wikipedia. I'm not interested in debating with you the definition of a cult film, because that's completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. I suggest you read Cult film, which gives a good overview of the topic and is sourced to academic papers. Third, you used colons incorrectly. Read WP:TP to learn how to use them; you are now using them correctly. Every paragraph does not get a new indentation. Fourth, that's not an article by the New York Times. That's a database entry that the New York Times licenses from AllRovi. There's an entry for every film in AllRovi; it doesn't legitimize anything. Some editors like to link to AllRovi, but I think it's redundant when we've already got a link to the IMDb. Your definition of a cult film is original research, and it really doesn't have any bearing on anything in Wikipedia. Like I said, if you don't like how Wikipedia works, take it up elsewhere. I suggest the Village Pump or the Teahouse. Posting on my user page will not change anything. This is likely my last comment on the subject. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I did not mean to ruffle your feathers, you obviously know a helluva lot more about Wiki editing procedures than I do. I am only an occasional Wiki "editor," with a focus upon films, music, biographies and politics, and typically I only check in once every several months or so, if that. In the end analysis, I respect your right to conduct matters as you choose. You have your rationale and this is your area of expertise, I accept that fact. As I stated previously, I get a big kick out of the little film in question....and of films in the "bad taste" category, it's always been one of my favorites, although I do feel it is far too corny at times...or maybe it's just that I'm now much older than when I first saw the film, so "maturity" makes everything I once enjoyed from my youth seem much more corny. Incidentally, I noticed one of the links went dead, as you sharply observed, and I believe the following link essentially replaces the original link: <http://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/133733-Twin-Galaxies-Video-Game-Film-Festival-to-Celebrate-Culture?highlight=History%27s+Video+Game+Film+Festival+Celebrate+Gaming%27s+Impact+Media+Culture> Unfortunately, I have no idea how to insert a link into a REFLIST, as I think you might have created the REFLIST, so feel free to correct the error yourself, if you choose. Finally, in conclusion, again, I suppose one other reason why that little film gives me such a kick today is that it's so inappropriate in this strict new World of Politically Correct Rules of Conduct and in that regard, as old as H-Z happens to be, that little nasty film almost seems radical by comparison to what's out there today. Best Regards.........

CategorySelector3 (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I meant to tell you one other thing: years ago, when I worked briefly for a magazine in Houston and was trying to find out more about the little film, its creators, and cast, for an article I had planned to write about comedy films in America. I contacted one of the film's distribution fellows by phone, and the guy told me most everybody connected to the film, its cast and crew, died of AIDS many years ago. Now I don't know if that's true or just some cruel dismissal of my question, maybe on account of a falling out between all concerned, but if there is any truth to it, I suppose that's one big reason why there is so little press material concerning the film???? Since you seem to know so much about all these oddball cult films, please let me know if you ever discover more info about what really happened to those involved in the thing. Thanks......

CategorySelector3 (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@CategorySelector3: You have yet to truly ruffle my feathers, but I admit that I am occasionally curt to the point of rudeness, and I am not always as patient as other Wikipedia editors. I have no problem with assisting you or helping you to learn Wikipedia's bureaucratic ways of operation, but I am completely uninterested in debates about how journalists define a cult film, how Wikipedia is run, or whether Wikipedia's policies are fair to countercultural films. These are issues that I can not resolve, and it is not conducive to discuss them. I think many journalists are ignorant, but it's not my place to define what a cult film is; blogs are where you post your opinion, and Wikipedia is where you report the opinions of reliable sources. If you have issues with Wikipedia, the Teahouse is much more appropriate venue for new users to air grievances about Wikipedia itself. Who knows; maybe your comments there could result in positive change to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I don't really know much about Hollywood Zap!. It's one of those more obscure Troma films that I've seen little information on, like Dead Dudes in the House. Even Rabid Grannies probably has had more attention than either of those others, and sometimes I think I'm the only one in the world who likes Rabid Grannies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining your perspectives on all these matters. I will close this entire matter by making just one more point worth pondering, in defense of ALL these older, PRE-internet, small films. In one sense, any non-studio film created prior to the dawn of the internet revolution, that began around the mid-1990s, generally happens to be URL links-deprived, since much of the printed material/reviews/etc. concerning such PRE-internet films never managed to make it into cyberspace. For example, I still remember an old buddy, and fellow "fan" of "H-Z," sending me a 1/2 page glowing review of the film printed by a Las Vegas Sun reviewer (whose name now escapes me)...and years later, I spent some time trying to retrieve the article on the internet, but could never find it again. I contacted the Las Vegas Sun and was informed by an editor that much of the pre-1990s printed material never was transferred into cyber-format, especially those articles written by individuals who died prior to the internet revolution. Basically, the Las Vegas Sun editor informed me that, unless the writers of the various articles were willing to oversee the transfer (from printed format to cyber format), then the paper generally never bothered to transfer such printed material into digital format. Essentially, the internet discriminates against these older films, particularly those that never had a major studio to serve as an overseer to aggregate and preserve all such PRE-internet articles for posterity. I believe there is probably more material out there about "H-Z," and many other PRE-internet films, but much of it probably went up in smoke when warehouses of printed newspapers were emptied and set ablaze, and no major studio was there to give a hoot about transferring the material into the digital realm. Thanks again.......

CategorySelector3 (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@CategorySelector3: Sites like AllRovi and the IMDB exist to catalog every single film ever made; Wikipedia does not do that. However, it's not as difficult as you might think to locate sources online. There are many digitized sources on the Internet, and some of them were digitized without the knowledge of the original copyright owner. Google caused a bit of controversy for doing that. Some archives are commercial and require payment, but some of those will give Wikipedia editors free access if they demonstrate a need for it. For sources that have never been digitized, offline sources are perfectly legitimate, and many editors use offline-only sources. If you check out cult film, you will see some of the sources are not available online. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits to the midichlorians article

Since you redirected the midichlorians article including the material and citations I added, can you please kindly add them in the sections that I added? Thanks--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want. If you want to merge the content you added to the main article, you could do that. Keep in mind that content should be sourced to reliable sources. If you can find third party reliable sources to support an article on Midichlorians, you can expand that article, but I agree with EEMIV, who rejected those sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. What I meant was could you please add the section on midichlorians in the force article. The same material that I had added but you rmeoved, please place it in the relevant section of the force article with the references in it. Thank you Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you make of this article?

What is a good way forward, here ([2])? One approach, of @User:RHaworth would be to delete, or otherwise take a machete to it. For BLP like this, is there a clear path forward? Note, tags are mine, from today, along with the talk section. Re-tag if there is a better way. Advice welcome (here). After the Nazanin, and no good deed goes unpunished, I am hands off. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't be impossible to fix, but it would be a pain. Luckily, it's not a long article. I added a few sources and moved a few from the external links into the body. It's not easy to find secondary sources on academics, as newspapers don't usually take much interest in their accomplishments. Luckily, there are occasionally specialist books. It looks significantly better now, but I wouldn't say that it's entirely fixed. It's still a bit promotional, and some of the awards don't seem as notable as Wikipedia would like. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Georgism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Germany–Poland border

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Germany–Poland border. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Oscar López Rivera

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Oscar López Rivera. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You might have a brief look here

...at this article, [3], regarding a BLP unsourced paragraph I came across. Like the case of the earlier firestorm, I flagged this but did not delete text. (Difference being, I did not remove and repaste anything here, relative to Nazanin, and so I am clear of accusations of putting in unsourced BLP material.) Not that the House of Windsor's living members need protecting; WP quality, however, clearly does. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anarcho-capitalism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anarcho-capitalism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:YesAllWomen

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:YesAllWomen. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Art of the Steal (2013 film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• last=Abele|first=Robert|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]|date=13 March 2014|accessdate=24 June 2014}}}</ref> [[Richard Roeper]] of the ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' wrote, "It’s like a low-budget,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kamehameha I

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kamehameha I. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Incest in popular culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Republic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israelis in India

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Israelis in India. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:East Germany

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:East Germany. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lana Del Ray (album)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lana Del Ray (album). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Heaven Sent Gaming

Thank you for nominating my first article for AfD. I sincerely mean that. Since you marked the article for deletion, the article's really shaped up. It now covers a much larger breadth on the subject; and it's much more informative and reliable now as well. The other editors have also really helped find topics on the subject, that I didn't even know about. Thank you so much for helping, a newb like I, to become a much better editor. DunDunDunt (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)