User talk:Nightscream

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. :-)

• Archive 1 (2005): March 5, 2005 - December 29, 2005
• Archive 2 (2006): January 2, 2006 - January 18, 2007
• Archive 3 (2007): January 18, 2007 - December 26, 2007
• Archive 4 (2008): January 2, 2008 - December 31, 2008
• Archive 5 (2009): January 2, 2009 - January 2, 2010
• Archive 6 (2010): January 1, 2010 - December 29, 2010
• Archive 7 (2011): January 2, 2011 - December 30, 2011
• Archive 8 (2012): January 1, 2012 - December 31, 2012
• Archive 9 (2013): January 2, 2013 - December 3, 2013
• Archive 10 (2014): January 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014
• Archive 11 (2015): January 1, 2015 - December 31, 2015
• Archive 12 (2016): January 12, 2016 - December 24, 2016
• Archive 13 (2017): January 1, 2017 - December 30, 2017
• Archive 14 (2018): January 11, 2018 - December 31, 2018
• Archive 15 (2019): January 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019
• Archive 16 (2020): March 25, 2020 - December 27, 2020
• Archive 17 (2021): January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021
• Archive 18 (2022): January 12, 2022 - December 31, 2022
• Archive 19 (2023): January 1, 2023 - December 31, 2023

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Nightscream. Thank you for your work on The Death of Captain Marvel. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@SunDawn: Thanks, but I didn't really create the article. I merely created the redirect with that title, which directed to the character's page. According to the article's edit history, it was Thebiguglyalien who created the article's content, almost entirely within the span of one edit, so it's they who deserves the kudos for it. Nightscream (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Using the Photo from Jennifer Grey

Hello, can I use the Foto from Jennifer Grey for my german Homepage? Best regards Daniela Rühling 2A04:4540:6C03:6300:D126:C0FD:1A78:FA2B (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@2A04:4540:6C03:6300:D126:C0FD:1A78:FA2B: As long as you follow the requirements described in the Summary section, the yes, absolutely. Thanks for asking. :-) Nightscream (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:IronManV5No25.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:IronManV5No25.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

New message from MPFitz1968

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Zendaya § Lower case after colon in headers. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

"Writer, illustrator, and publisher" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Writer, illustrator, and publisher has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 4 § Writer, illustrator, and publisher until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

"Dr. Seuss Enterprises" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Dr. Seuss Enterprises has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24 § Dr. Seuss Enterprises until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The Pandemic Special and WP:NOTBROKEN

There is an abusive user constantly edit-warring on The Pandemic Special by inserting piped links to redirects. I’ve already got a complaint filed but I also need to stop my edit warring. Can you please review the edits and assist as needed? Thanks. - SanAnMan (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@SanAnMan: It appears that that third editor, Barry Wom (whom I'm guessing is another editor that you contacted, or was otherwise alerted to the dispute from the dispute resolution noticeboard, has already intervened, and the noticeboard indicates that the editor with whom you disputed chose not to participate in that noticeboard discussion. Would I be correct in understanding that the matter is now resolved? Nightscream (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Visual Capitalist highest grossing media franchise source

Hi! I've noticed you used this source recently across many franchise pages but you should undo your edits because its case of WP:CITOGENESIS as the Visual Capitalist source cites a Fandom page which itself (according to the Fandoms page edit logs [1]) is a copy paste version of the October 2019 version of the highest grossing media franchise article [2] which had the inflated figures. Timur9008 (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Timur9008: Shit. I totally missed that it was from Fandom. And I'm usually better at catching stuff like that. Thanks, Timur. Nightscream (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Nikki Sixx

Please don't remove cited information as you did with this edit here. As you can clearly see the information is no longer uncited. ★Trekker (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the earlier spat. I feel in hindsight that I was somewhat rude. This would have been avoided if I found the People article earlier. My apologies.★Trekker (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@StarTrekker: Yeah, seriously, dude, you totally hurt my feelings, I mean WTF??? Just kidding.

Seriously, don't sweat it. Nice collaborating with you. :-) Nightscream (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of "boosterism, WP:UNDUE material, trivia" from Union City High School article

This edit to the article for Union City High School (New Jersey) removes all sorts of content with the claims that it's all "boosterism, WP:UNDUE material, trivia". This is an article that you have worked on extensively to bring to Good Article status. I've made that point several times to this editor, who seems to get some sort of perverse pleasure from the mass removal of content from school articles, regardless of sourcing. This editor seems to have only a tenuous understanding of relevant policies and the MO is to sort of mention allusions to Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays and in edit summaries and use them as an excuse for mass deletion of material. As the content that was removed by User:Melchior2006 is all material that you added, I wanted to make sure that you agreed that this content was not "boosterism, WP:UNDUE material, trivia" before taking further action. Any thoughts on this issue? Alansohn (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Alansohn: Thanks for alerting me. No, I don't think it's boosterism, and he's also gotten WP:UNDUE completely wrong, as that policy explicitly explains that it pertains to the presentation of conflicting points of view in matters of controversy in proportion to their prominence (as in the example given by that policy page, Flat Earth theory in articles about planetary science), which has nothing to do with the material he deleted from the article, as I explained in the edit summary that accompanied the revert I just did. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your work in general and for this article in particular, which I have frequently pointed to as an example of one with Good Article status that should be used as a model for other school articles. Alansohn (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Alansohn: Stop it, Alan, you're making me blush. :-) Nightscream (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Floppy disk: copyright vio detected

Your edit to Floppy disk 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 information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. 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) 12:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Diannaa: The material in question was properly paraphrased, and attributed to the two sources from which it was derived with proper citations. Removing it, as you have --- and in the process, leaving considerable uncited information in the passage, which is one of the things I was trying to address by adding that paraphrased material --- was not warranted, nor was this false accusation above. Even if you felt that the material was not sufficiently paraphrased, this could have been addressed by simply paraphrasing it further, or by talking to me about it, perhaps asking me to do so, which would have fixed the problem you alleged without wholesale deletion, and improved the article. Instead, you undid valuable work, and harmed the article in the process for no rational reason, even deleting the versions from the article's history, which means we cannot discuss specific passages or why you or anyone else had a problem with them, nor use the material in those versions as a basis on which to fix those passages. This was extremely poor judgment on your part. Nightscream (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello Nightscream. I have undone the revision deletion temporarily so that you can better see (using Earwig's tool) why I had to remove the content.

Here's the comparison with the MIT content: here.

Here's the comparison with the How Stuff Works content: here. In both instances (especially the second one) the overlap is far too much to comply with our copyright policy.

We are currently using an automated copyvio detection system called CopyPatrol, and have listings on a typical day numbering 100 to 125 cases that need to be examined. Currently on a typical day we only have two people (myself and one other person) assessing these reports. While I do occasionally paraphrase the copyvio material myself, given the volume of copyvio reports that are filed each day and the amount of time it takes to assess and clean the articles and notify and/or discuss with the editors involved, it's not possible for me to perform re-writes in each instance and there's not enough spare time in my day to discuss with 40-plus editors the violations that I find. — Diannaa (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to be so brusque, but the battery isdead on my laptop, so I have to log off now. — Diannaa (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Diannaa:

Understood. Thank you for your timely response, and for your explanation. I apologize that I negelcted to consider that the matter was derived from an automated tool, and jumped to a conclusion here. I'm sorry that I leveled the criticism wrongly at you. Thank you for showing class and patience in not responding more harshly, as others might have. This is another reminder that one (in this case me) needs to

I do have a question: Given that the information in question uses highly technical language, how can I paraphrase it further with accuracy? It's far easier to do so with non-technical material, but paraphrasing something like "As the drive begins to receive information from the computer, or from the disk when retrieving files, the rotary actuator moves the suspension arm out track by track depending on the number of step signals it receives from the computer system" is far more difficult because I don't know what synonymous phrasing can be used that will preserve the meaning with the same level of precision and/or accuracy. Do you have any ideas? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Part of our job is to take the technical language and make it more direct and easier for the layman to understand. What I generally do is read through the source material and think about what is the gist of the message I want to convey.Then I write the content using my own words without looking much at the source, and when I'm done I re-read the source to make sure I haven't misinterpreted what the document says. For your example I might say "The drive receives instructions from the computer in the form of a step signal as to which track needs to be accessed. If the drive is misaligned, the drive will take the correct number of steps, but will arrive at the wrong place." I would offer a link to "step signal" if we had an article on that topic but we don't. — Diannaa (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Diannaa:

"...and think about what is the gist of the message I want to convey...Then I write the content using my own words..."

The problem with this is that the material is not gist-oriented. The word gist refers to "the substance or essence" of something, but that is only applicable to general ideas, not technical and specific ones. The material in question is of an extremely specific information set, which cannot be reduced to a simpler or vague form the way other, non-technical material can, especially in a way that retains the specificity of the information. The materal in question is not one in which I have "my own words". If there were clear synonyms, or synonymous wording, for which there is in other cases, this would be a problem.

What exactly would be the phrase "rotary actuator" in your own words ? How would you convey the "gist" of the rotary actuator moves the suspension arm out track by track? This is precisely why the degree to which I could paraphrase the material in question was limited.

Not looking at the source??? That is not a reasonable criteria for paraphrasing.

Again, as an example, look to the passage I quoted above in blue. How would you paraphase that passage, as an example? Nightscream (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

We don't actually have to paraphrase phrases such as rotary actuator or names of schools or job titles. If you are unable to write your own content, that does not give you a free pass to violate Wikipedia's copyright policy.

General advice: Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material (short properly attributed quotations are allowed, but cannot be used as a substitute for writing your own content). One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words (that's what I meant when I said that I study the source document to extract the meaning and then try without looking at the source to put it into my own words). Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase, and don't try to include every single detail. (For example, the content I already suggested in my previous reply does not use the phrase "rotary actuator".) This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. It also helps to have more than one source to draw from. — Diannaa (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Diannaa: "We don't actually have to paraphrase phrases such as rotary actuator..." You do you if you want to describe that mechanism, as the articles with the mechanisms related to floppy disks and floppy disk drives. Did you not notice this in the article? Did you not realize that such technology articles tend to feature this?

"...or names of schools or job titles." I didn't say anything about names of schools or job titles.

"If you are unable to write your own content, that does not give you a free pass to violate Wikipedia's copyright policy." I never said nor implied otherwise. As someone who's been editing here since 2005, I am quite familiar with the copyright policy, and on more than one occasion, I've had to remove material copied verbatim from articles and politely admonish the violator. But this one incident --- which involves a matter more subtle than that, and with more complicated questions --- does not mean you have to talk to me like I'm completely ignorant of basic things like policy. Do you think you could dial down the condescenscion a bit.

"Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material." Um, no, that's wrong. Content has to be written in your own words, and should not contain an excessive amount of wording from the source material. Prohibiting any wording from the source material is neither possible, nor reasonable. But I'll assume that this was (no irony intended) a poorly worded choice on your part.

One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Again, the material in question doesn't work that way because it's a highly specific, detailed, and technical description of a device, which does not lend itself easily to paraphrasing. There's no way that passage can be summarized without that technical wording. The article is filled with such wording, except that it's largely uncited. Here are three examples:

A spindle motor in the drive rotates the magnetic medium at a certain speed, while a stepper motor-operated mechanism moves the magnetic read/write heads radially along the surface of the disk. Both read and write operations require the media to be rotating and the head to contact the disk media, an action originally accomplished by a disk-load solenoid. Later drives held the heads out of contact until a front-panel lever was rotated (5¼-inch) or disk insertion was complete (3½-inch). To write data, current is sent through a coil in the head as the media rotates. The head's magnetic field aligns the magnetization of the particles directly below the head on the media. When the current is reversed the magnetization aligns in the opposite direction, encoding one bit of data. To read data, the magnetization of the particles in the media induce a tiny voltage in the head coil as they pass under it. This small signal is amplified and sent to the floppy disk controller, which converts the streams of pulses from the media into data, checks it for errors, and sends it to the host computer system.

Newer 5¼-inch drives and all 3½-inch drives automatically engage the spindle and heads when a disk is inserted, doing the opposite with the press of the eject button.

Most 3½-inch drives used a constant speed drive motor and contain the same number of sectors across all tracks. This is sometimes referred to as Constant Angular Velocity (CAV). In order to fit more data onto a disk, some 3½-inch drives (notably the Macintosh External 400K and 800K drives) instead use Constant Linear Velocity (CLV), which uses a variable speed drive motor that spins more slowly as the head moves away from the center of the disk, maintaining the same speed of the head(s) relative to the surface(s) of the disk. This allows more sectors to be written to the longer middle and outer tracks as the track length increases.

The people who added all the material violated WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, et al, by not citing their sources, which is a common problem on Wikipedia, and this means that for all we know, that material may have been copied in part or in whole verbatim from sources (assuming that it's not all the OR of the author[s]). But that didn't flag you or your Earwig tool because, ironically, the sources were not cited as it was in mine, now was it? Are you going to tell me that that technical material above was properly paraphrased in the words of the editors who added it? Do you really imagine that it appeared in a different from in some original source? Saying that the passage does not require detail, but only the "gist", when it's the type of information from which a "gist" can be extracted (another point I made above that you did not address), requires you to ignore rest of the article, which contains precisely that level of detail, and is not reasonable as a rationale or a solution to this matter.

So how would you paraphrase the example passage I quoted for you in my post above? How would you "summarize" it in a way that fell into line with the other technical text in the article, like the examples I quoted in this message? I asked you this above, and I don't think you answered this. Why not provide this an example to illustrate your idea, and show how this conforms to the content already in the article? Nightscream (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe I have already explained my actions adequately as required by policy, so I am disengaging now. If you would like to get a second opinion about the two edits that I removed, please consider asking one of the people listed here. Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

TRANSLATION: "I can't answer your points about the material already in the article because then I'd have to admit I'm wrong, and I can't offer an example of how to paraphrase the passage you quoted, because I really can't, and I can't admit either one of those things because I dont' have the honesty of character to do so."

Yep. I read you loud and clear, Diannaa. Toodles. :-) Nightscream (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

"Support for Donald Trump" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Support for Donald Trump has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 24 § Support for Donald Trump until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

"White support of donald trump" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect White support of donald trump has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 24 § White support of donald trump until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Valnet, Inc.

I thought this might interest you. I have started a draft on Valnet, Inc., which has within the span of a few years acquired a lot of companies in the entertainment media space (including Screen Rant, CBR, Collider, and MovieWeb). Given the stubby nature of these articles, I would like to merge all of them into their parent company once that article is sufficiently developed. However, this is more your space than mine, so I would value your opinion on the subject. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If you have sufficient sources provide information on those companies that is distinct from that of the parent company, and which can lend themselves to articles of considerable length and depth, then go for it. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"Medusa worm" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Medusa worm has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 10 § Medusa worm until a consensus is reached. cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 15:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: I reverted a change to the target as the RfD had already begun; although Loimia medusa seems like a good suggestion there (although it's almost looking like a DAB is needed...) Thanks! Skynxnex (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)