Jump to content

User talk:Nightscream: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Myzigzag (talk | contribs)
32 edits
Myzigzag (talk | contribs)
32 edits
Line 529: Line 529:


::::{{ping|Myzigzag}}The headline of which source? [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] ([[User talk:Nightscream#top|talk]]) 19:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Myzigzag}}The headline of which source? [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] ([[User talk:Nightscream#top|talk]]) 19:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::The inquirer. This is the source. https://www.inquirer.com/philly/business/20160103_Traditional_mall_anchors_are_fading_away.html [[User:Myzigzag|Myzigzag]] ([[User talk:Myzigzag|talk]]) 19:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:59, 21 August 2023

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. :-)

Cutting Ties (story) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cutting Ties (story) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 1 § Cutting Ties (story) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Nightscream!

Happy New Year!

Nightscream,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 02:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 02:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moops: Thank you. Same to you. And while I do find the practice of sending such greetings to several thousand editors you don't know to be rather remarkable, I don't think you should've been blocked for these, at least not without a warning, even if RoySmith thought at the time that you were using a bot.
Like the tilted ToC and the fly on your user pages, btw. Nightscream (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TY. Actually, one of the benefits of doing this was that I am able to see thousands of different editors talk pages, and take bits and pieces from each that I like and incorporate it into my own. I am trying to build a new consensus around whether or not I am able to continue sending these messages.. if you'd like to participate in that on the original 'Please review my block' post by RoySmith. TY — Moops ⋠T⋡ 19:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just left my two cents there.
Btw, how did you go about surveilling all those tp's without a bot? Nightscream (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-fiction comic books

Hi, not sure what your intent was with this edit summary of "That wording is not "in-universe". It is not "in-universe" to omit the boilerplate fact that each article is an article (indeed, calling this a "list" is entirely out-universe); characters are fictional, but comic strips are not; If this could be applied to strips, does that mean that there are non-fictional comic strips?" - because, yeah, there are obviously non-fiction comic strips - we have an article as such Non-fiction comics, or are you implying that comics may not exist, and as such are fictional themselves? I'm just a bit puzzled by it. I agree with the reversion, incidentally, I'm just not following your argument as written. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaheel Riens: Riens Did you see the edit that I had reverted, and the edit summary offered by that edit's author? It provides context for my edit summary, which was written in response to the one before it. Let me know if you still want me to clarify. Nightscream (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Snyder article

Thank you. I just wanted to expand on Snyder's lead paragraph because it was looking thin. In regards to his age I couldn't find a specific article that has it but when you google "Scott Snyder age" January 15, 1976 is what comes up. If you could help insert that information in that would be great. Its strange for a writer this notable not to have his age listed when other writers of similar renown do. Also don't you think we should add something about his new comixology venture even if its in his career section, especially about how night of the ghoul is about to become a movie https://deadline.com/2022/10/20th-21-laps-win-graphic-novel-night-of-the-ghoul-for-host-helmer-rob-savage-1235135153/ 173.66.8.230 (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@173.66.8.230: As I indicated in my first message, Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which users can learn to make here. I can add the citation for you if you direct me to a reliable sources, but Google search results are not considered reliable under Wikipedia's source reliability policy. But if you find one that is, let me know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's these links for his age https://www.celebsagewiki.com/scott-snyder, https://biographyvilla.com/scott-snyder/, https://allfamousbirthday.com/scott-snyder/.
Also can you please add the stuff about comixology and substack that he's now apart of. That's a significant part of his current biography that isn't in the lead. Here's the link about his current film adaptation of his work https://deadline.com/2022/10/20th-21-laps-win-graphic-novel-night-of-the-ghoul-for-host-helmer-rob-savage-1235135153/. 173.66.8.230 (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also here's a link to Scott Snyder joining substack https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/09/business/media/substack-comic-books.html 173.66.8.230 (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to understand that Wikipedia is strict when it comes to relying solely on sources that have a general reputation for reliability. I encourage you to read WP:IRS to learn more about this. The types of sourcs not considered reliable include the following ones you mentioned:
Sites with user-generated info, including IMDb, Patch Media, and other wikis, are not considered reliable under WP:USERG, because anyone is allowed to contribute to them, and they generally lack any tight sense of editorial oversight. The first one you suggested, CelebsAgeWiki, is, as indicated by both its title and a look at its About page, a wiki.
Any source whose use would constittute circular sourcing. This includes citing one Wikipedia article as a source in another, and also websites whose content clearly mirror Wikipedia. If you look at that second site you suggested, Biographyvilla, you can see that its text clearly mirrors the text of Snyder's Wikipedia article, which means the dob it gives is one that had been gleaned from an earlier version of this article that lacked a citation. Wikipedia also does not consider uncredentialed fan sites or fan blogs to be reliable, and looking at Biographyvilla's About page appears to indicate that is also a blog operated by two fans.
As for for Famous Birthdays, that also looks like an information aggregator rather than a site whose content is governered by journalistic or editorial principles. Nonetheless, I decided to check at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and discovered an August 2020 discussion that indicated that it had been blacklisted on Wikipedia for "severe violations of biographies of living persons policy." This was corroborated by other discussions from March 2020 and October 2014, the latter of which began with an inquiry that I myself had made about that site. During that discussion, I was told of an earlier one from a year prior that indicated the same thing.
Deadline Hollywood is indeed a reliable source for entertainment-related material, one which I've relied upon myself, but look at what that article is saying: That 20th Century has merely landed the rights to Snyder's novel. The substance of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF indicate that to avoid the indiscriminate addition of material to Wikipedia on the acquisition of adaptation rights to properties that end up in development hell, and or never being produced, we need to limit this to films/TV shows that have already begun pre-production.
The bit about his publishing material on Substack, and the NY Times cite for it, are entirely legit, so I added those to the article. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding this stuff. You seem to be good at Wikipedia. I also saw you divided the career section by decades. Is that generally how writer pages are divided?
Should we add more citations about his substack deal? There's alot of articles out there that give more information about Snyder and other comic writers joining substack. 173.66.8.230 (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@173.66.8.230: Thanks. I've been editing since 2005.
For comics creators articles, that is how I and some editors subdivide sections that have grown too large. Other editors prefer to use more descriptive subsection titles that include subtitles, like in the Frank Miller article.
If those other sources are ones that have a general reputation for reliability, either as mainstream sources (The New York Times) or ones specific to the comics industry (CBR.com, Newsarama, Bleeding Cool), and/or industries of related interest (IGN), and the information in question is encyclopedic in nature, then yes, absolutely, you can add the info yourself (Be bold, Wikipedia says to new editors!), or give them here, and I'll have a look at them for you. Hope that helps. Nightscream (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are the sections edited differently between prose writers and comic creators? For example do novelists also have sections divided into decades? or is it just comic creators because they write more 173.66.8.230 (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@173.66.8.230: In general, sections are divided into subsections when they have grown too large, so that subdividing them makes reading and navigating through them easier.

WP:SECTIONHEAD describes some of the do's and don't's for subheading names, but I'm not aware of any strict rule for those names; Rather, when the community as a whole does its thing, a WP:CONSENSUS will usually emerge. Sometimes that consensus is formally codified into a policy or guideline, or what is called the Manual of Style, which is the style guide with which the language and organizational structure of articles is described. But not everything is so codified, which is why you will sometimes see multiple groups of editors who prefer one style or format to another.

For example, I am staunchly against the use of the heading name Early life and eduction to describe the first, formative information of a biographical subject, because in most cases, in my opinion, it's redundant, since Early life refers to all those things that occur during that period, INCLUDING one's education, so it makes no sense to me to specify "education" as a some separate quality that stands apart from early life, when that is one of the many things that fall under that term's umbrella. (This one exception to this that I acknowledge is articles on child actors, because the thing for which they usually become notable occurs before they've completed their education.) but obviously, some editors disagree with this, which is why I often find this redundancy in articles, and change it to simply "Early life", since that covers everything in that period.

I personally dislike verbose subheadings like the one in Frank Miller, because the question of which things should be described in could potentially be subjective, arbitrary, or inconsistent. I understand why Daredevil, Dark Knight Returns, Sin City, and 300 would be given emphasis in his article, but why title a subsection with those things, when that's not what those subsections are solely about? Nonetheless, some editors, as I said, do prefer them, as there is not (as far as I know) a consensus on this question.

Btw, editors who intend to do more than just one-off edits are expected to create a username account. :-) Nightscream (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly just do one-off edits. I only started doing them because I notice some comic creator pages were sparse or inaccurate. I like comics
Also I found some more articles about the substack thing from reputable sources. I think NY times is probably still the best so it should be enough but here are some additional ones if you wanted to add them too.
https://www.ign.com/articles/substack-comic-book-publisher-2022-relaunch
https://ew.com/books/inside-new-substack-comic-projects-from-tom-king-brian-k-vaughan-and-more/
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/substack-marvel-dc-comics-writers-1235009529/
Also Grant Morrison joined substack too if you want to add that to their article. 173.66.8.230 (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Superman curse

Hi, dude. You are right in what you say and therefore I decided better not to argue with you anymore. And it is more; I looked for sources on the eventual consideration of Dean Cain as Bruce Wayne/Batman for the Batman Forever and they are very few or otherwise copied from Wikipedia in Spanish. It is preferable to leave things of this size rather than cause trouble and edition wars. Regards. JeanCastì (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on User:Chelsi2023

Hi, in case the ping didn't work, I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#New user repeatedly citing Wikipedia, does not communicate. DuncanHill (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Archive)

Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard

Hey, you dropped a word here when you reverted my edit, so I inserted a word to repair the flow. No worries. Thanks for caring. Carry on. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 03:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiWikiWayne: Sorry about that. Thanks for correcting me. Nightscream (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Hey, now you've reverted standard stuff from under the sheets, like spaces and quote marks, and line breaks. You're not supposed to revert things that don't show up to the reader, unless you also do some visible edits. See: Help:List-defined references#Examples for examples of the spaces, quotes, and line breaks. Not sure why you did all that, and why you changed the names of named references. Your edit summaries are snarky too, like you're fixing a mistake. Lighten up, Francis. PS: Those italics threw a ref error and I immediately removed them. Not sure how you think you did anything in that regards. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 06:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, the reason I'm under the sheets is I'm trying to fix these template errors: Category:Pages with non-numeric formatnum arguments, so I run some cleanup scripts while I'm under there that do some industry standard text markup like add extra spaces, add quotes, add line breaks, remove extra spaces, etc. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 06:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiWikiWayne: Hello, Wayne. Let me see if we can work this out in a civil manner.
First, if you're going to admonish others about what they're "supposed" to do and not do, then addressing them as "Francis" (which I'm assuming was intended as some type of derisive comment) violates WP:CIV, WP:NPA, et al. Let's keep this civil, and we have to do disagree, let's do so without the vitriol, okay?
As for "snarky", I just looked at my last three edit summaries, and can see nothing that I think any reasonable person would call "snarky". But if you can explain what those comments were, and how they were objectionable, please do. If you want to bring in another editor for third opinion on this, or ask other uninvolved editors, then I'm open to that as well. For the record, I did not intend to be snarky, and I apologize if something I did say came across that way.
Now as for the edits, I don't know what you mean by "under the sheets", but if you have information on some policy, guideline, or MOS that prohibits some aspect(s) of my edits, then I'm open to reading it. I didn't see anything at the section you linked to at Help:List-defined references#Examples that says this, but if I missed it, please point it out. As for not doing making these changes without also making "visible" edits, this sounds like a very peculiar rule to me, but again, aside from my request that you cite it, if you look carefully at my edit, you'll see I made plenty of "visible" changes, some of which are mentioned in my edit summary.
As for why I made the edits I did, I think I was fairly detailed in my edit summary. I offered more details, and cited policies and guidelines, in the summary that accompanied the revert I just did.
Again, I appreciate you fixing my ref errors and other things like that. Thanks again.:-) Nightscream (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiWikiWayne: You continuing to revert the disputed aspects of the article during a discussion over that dispute, and without refuting or even answering my reply to you above. That is a blockable offense. Are you sure you don't want to re-think your approach to this dispute? Or should I just contact an administrator? Nightscream (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'll just bring you up to speed one issue at a time, until you get it, or until we reach an impasse. Issue #1 will be the bullet points on the references on KOJD. Bullet points are created with asterisks. For an asterisk to render as a bullet point it must be on its own line (or in a column or table on its own line). That's why I put each reference in the ref cluster on its own line: so the first asterisk will render. But, you're not used to line breaks so you keep reverting it to break the bullet from rendering. If your revert is breaking something, my fixing it is not actionable. When, you pull the asterisk up a line, you break the bullet that renders in the reference section. The asterisk must be the first thing in the line. Go look in the refs. You'll see the first clustered ref with an asterisk ( * ) instead of a rendered bullet (  • ) point. That is your doing. By the way, one of the most popular pages on the Wiki bullets some refs. Go look at ref #1 and ref #366 (today's numbering) at Tom Brady#G-O-A-T. That's kind of where KOJD started: tons of refs hanging off every paragraph. When I took it to Good Article, the reviewer wanted less numeral clusters, so bullets were the solution. One numeral can cover a lot of refs. Check it out. Minneapolis clusters refs by using the word "and" instead of neat bullet points. Check it out (look at refs 19, 30, 45, 46, and others). Their system is a haypile of refs, IMHO. Sorry for the delay in getting back to this. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 06:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiWikiWayne: Nice of you to finally decide to talk to me. So nice to be "brought up to speed" by someone who initially decided to ignore my attempts at discussion in lieu of editing warring, in lightof the fact that Wikipedia forbids this. Now that we're chatting......
I assume this refers to the Jaycee Dugard article, correct? Although I do tend to remove unneeded line breaks and spaces, offhand, I don't recall doing this with a bulleted list of sources -- and yes, I am aware of how a line break is needed when formatting multiple sources into one citation, as I've done this myself. Can you specify where in the article this occurred? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Taylor updates

Hey you're pretty good at editing articles about comic creators. Can you add more to Tom Taylor's article? It seems very sparse for a writer that has many accomplishments. I think his dc work needs more fleshing out than just lumping it in one paragraph under biography. Sorry but I'm not that good at editing things for Wikipedia. Just thought I should alert you to this article. 173.66.8.230 (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@173.66.8.230: Welcome to Wikipedia, my friend.
Would you like to work on this together with me? I can give you some pointers on how editing on Wikipedia works (if you are new here --- I assume you are, and if not, I apologize), and I can explain ways in which you can provide some raw material. Let me know how you wish to proceed. Thans. Nightscream (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have the time but I can some stuff occasionally. I just don't know what to add. I just know it needs some sprucing up. I thought you would have a better idea. Also the Justice League article needs alot of work too. Someone completely removed a lot of it I think. 173.66.8.230 (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@173.66.8.230: Okay. Let me see if can outline what we need in a nutshell:
First, if you're going to edit here repeatedly, the community expects you to sign up for a username account. It's free, takes seconds, allows you remain anonymous (whereas people can see your IP when you edit anonymously), and it's easier for other editors to talk one-on-one with you. I highly recommend it.
Second, Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. I can make the citations, so if you want to point me in the direction of the sources, and indicate what information you think would go well in the article, you can do that.
If the article is about a person, self-published sources are okay for a limited amount of info in the article, as long as it's just innocuous stuff like date of birth, hometown, family status, where one went to school, etc., but for information that goes to the subject's notability, they need to be secondary sources published indepednently of the subject. If you're talking about a character, book, or storyline, it's prefereable to use sources other than the company that publishes it (though obviously, lots of articles have info sourced to the company. When I wrote the Powers and abilities section of Miles Morales, I concede that most of the sources in that section are issues of the books Miles has appeared in it. But secondary sources are prefered when available, and the majority of sources in an article need to be seondary ones.)
For comics, this means industry sources like Newsarama, CBR.com, Comics Beat, The Comics Journal, Comic Book Roundup, Grand Comics Database, as well as sources that cover comics and related areas of interest like IGN, Ain't it Cool News, Polygon, io9, and of course, mainstream sources, which are covering comics more often these days, like The New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, etc.
To gain a better understanding of this, I recommend the following:
  • Read WP:IRS to understand which sources are considered reliable, and which ones are not.
  • Read WP:PSTS to understand what secondary and primary sources are.
  • Read WP:SELFPUB to understand when to use and not use self-published sources.
Hope this helps! Nightscream (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to what part of the 9/11 conspiracies part you wrote..

Someone here suggests that it was a conspiracy blowing up the towers with controlled demolition and remote planes to get into Iraq and build a gas pipeline.. That's odd, as it's a fact that indeed the pipeline was started in 2015. Which the link right below these supposed conspiracy theories goes straight to the pipeline... Also the story about the toxcicity of vinyl chloride, omitting the part of it being very toxic and in soil and water which has been known for decades... There is some real b.s in these edits. 2604:2D80:DA10:4B00:3D63:1DD8:E70:7997 (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@2604:2D80:DA10:4B00:3D63:1DD8:E70:7997: I'm sorry, but I don't know what referring to. Which edits are these? Can you provide the diffs to these edits? Which article? Nightscream (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big Apple Comic Con

ok, lets see if this works. You keep on deleting the entry on "It Came From The Radio" despite the fact that it is exactly what was added on there. The official radio show of the big apple con. As a non tech guy, perhaps I'm formatting things incorrectly, or what have you, so what are you looking for beyond what has been provided? 100.38.253.203 (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That which I described in my edit summaries and in my message to you on your talk page. If you need to elaborate:
* First, any editor who wishes to perform more than a single, one-off edit is expected to sign in for a username account. It's free, takes seconds, allows you to be geo-anonymous, and makes it easier for two editors to communicate with one another one-on-one.
* Please indicate the time stamp or mark in that show episode's audio file at which the information is mentioned, so that other editors who wish the bring the material in line with Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, which is one of the site's core policies, can do so.
* Per WP:PAIC, citations go at the end of the supported, so if that webpage/show you cited supports all of it, goes at the end.
* Mentioning the radio show and maybe the host seems reasonable. Name-dropping everyone who works on it, along with all their other occupations, as if your editing a resume rather than an encyclopedia article, is not. Mentioning all the major occupations held by a person is fine if the Wikipedia article is about that person. Not so if it's an article on a comics convention, and the passage in question is one whose central point is the official radio show of that conl. In that case, a mere mention of the host is enough.
If you need anything else, let me know. Nightscream (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to criticism as "disruptive" and "uncivil"

Calling other productive, rule-abiding editors "disruptive" is disruptive in itself. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr:
No.
It isn't, and nothing at WP:DAPE says it is.
If merely referring to violations of community guidelines were itself a violation of community guidelines, then it would impossible for the editing community to deal with such problems, which is why the only people who tend to peddle such nonsenscial ideas are, of course, disruptive editors. Making accusations blindly, or indiscriminately, without evidence or reasoning, may be a violation of WP:AGF. But doing so cautiously and in good faith, with the willingness to provide evidence/reasoning that shows that the accusation is valid, is not.
I'm not fooled by this sophistry, which you might've observed by last year's discussion on citation, so peddle these logical fallacies elsewhere.
The next time you remove a citation from an article without providing a valid rationale for it, as you did with your knee-jerk revert here (in which you falsely claimed "excessive wikilinking" in your edit summary, when the wikilink there for the word "transceiver" was not only clearly not excessive, but which you didn't even bother removing in order to complete your allegation that it was excessive), I will contact an administrator to have you blocked for disruptive editing. Please do not make that necessary. NinjaRobotPirate and others, you may recall, were not fooled by your canards in last year's discussion. They will not be fooled by the false rationale in your revert. Nightscream (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per jargon and that comment - "In general, the lead should not assume that the reader is well acquainted with the subject of the article. Terminology in the lead section should be understandable on sight to general readers whenever this can be done in a way that still adequately summarizes the article, and should not depend on a link to another article." Parenthetic explanations is the suggested method. Leads are also not the place to add content not found in the body (and commercial websites are not considered very reliable). That your uncivil/multiple lead edits got rolled up in one revert is somewhat unavoidable when you put them all in one edit. You seem to read what you want into ANIs and ignore the rest, but you can be sure no ANI is a rubber stamp for uncivil behavior. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fountains of Bryn Mawr:
So first it's "disruptive" and now it's "uncivil", eh? You seem to think that you can use these words to mean "any ol' thing that makes me upset because I don't like it."
Sorry, but that's not how it works.
Regarding the parenthetical definition, I find your rationale reasonable, so I'll compromise by not opposing it further. Feel free to re-add it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I understand, in regards to certain ones I guess I either forgot to add in the citation I have been using for most, or fell into an assumption that the award was already listed as they either have a dedicated award section or that they had the Inkpot Award template at the bottom. Rusted AutoParts 16:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts: Understood. Peace. Nightscream (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

You've violated WP:3RR:

My suggestion is you undo those. There isn't much defence for five reverts in 24 hours. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Miesianiacal: I think you need to re-read 3RR. That guideline pertains to reverts of the same material, not to different aspects of an article. The diffs you provided above show three different things being edited: A notability tag, a plot length tag, and passage in which you added excessive detail.
Of these, the notability tag was indeed reverted a second time, because I re-read the piece that Alex21 cited, WP:NTVEP, and pointed out that it does not indicate any criteria that is not met by that article. In addition to this, WP:NTVEP is a section in Wikipedia:Notability (television), which is an essay, and not a policy or guideline. Do you disagree with these observations? If so, let me know.
As for the statements you made on your talk page:
"The reasoning for the edit was already given before you came along and undid it."
No it wasn't. The edit with which you added that detail was this one, which included no edit summary, nor did you provide a rationale for it on the article's talk page. If there was some other venue in which you gave this rationale, then please link me to where it is.
"...if you paid attention to the history, you'd've seen there was a kind of evolution from one wording to the other."
I indeed pay attention to the edit history of all the South Park episode articles by keeping them my Watchlist, which is how I learned of the edits in question. There was no such "evolution". You simply added that detail bloat, as mentioned above. If I'm wrong, then what are you referring to by "evolution". Can you provide the diffs to this?
In any event, whether there was an "evolution" is immaterial. Material is not kept, edited, or excluded because it follows or does not follow an "evolution." It's edited on the basis of principles of good writing in general, and of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in particular. The series of unnecessary tangential details you added is not needed for a reader's understanding of the plot. An article on the royal should certainly mention it. An article on Harry and Meghan, or Megxit certainly might. But adding all the detail to a passage in a satricial TV episode that is merely mentioning what the episode is parodying is overkill. If you disagree, I'll listen to your counterargument. If we can't come to an agreement, then we'll call in other editors for a consensus discussion, okay? Nightscream (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's three reverts to the same article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, the 3RR discussions I've observed have indicated that the community addresses reverts only to the portion of the article under dispute -- specifcally that which undoes another editor's edits. If one of us finds a cool link that would make a good addition to the External links section, or adds an image to the Infobox, your poistion would indicate that this violates 3RR, which makes little sense if those things are not under dispute. But if we need clarification on this, then we can ask other editors/administrators at WP:3RR. Nightscream (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you from personal experience that it is more than three reverts to a page, no matter whether it's the same identical revert each time or not, no matter how far back any of the reverts go. How on earth is adding a new image or external link a revert? If such edits revert to something that existed before, they're not new.
I posted the warning of the 3RR violation here, instead of at WP:3RR as a favour to you. If you'd like to go straight there, we can do so. You might get let off with a warning from someone else. But, you do still run the risk of getting a block, especially since you've been blocked for 3RR violations before, among other blocks. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to report it. Or we can call in other editors to discuss it here. Whichever you prefer. Nightscream (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to re-read 3RR is ironic; WP:3RR very clearly states An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. Also, it's not "That guideline", it's "That policy". -- Alex_21 TALK 07:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it, and I was suprised to read that, since it does not reflect the practices that I described above (aside from being unreasonable, for reasons I also described above). It also appears to be self-contradictory:
The term "page" in the three-revert rule above is defined as any page on Wikipedia, including those in talk and project spaces. The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material...
An edit that reverses or undoes the actions of another editor is one thing. But saying, "whether involving the same or different material" does not. If it's "different" material, then we're not talking about the material over which the multiple editors are disputing. Again, if two editors are arguing over the lede, and I add a category to article, that's edit warring? That would mean that any edit during a dispute is edit warring, which again, is not what I've observed in discussions to date.
I'm going to ask about that on the 3RR talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, ask about it, but it's been a very clear rule since it was added almost 13 years ago. You're completely misreading the policy; 3RR only considers reverts, not the addition of other content (i.e. your example of a category is irrelevant). -- Alex_21 TALK 22:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3RR refers to the content being disputed. It does not refer to edits to unrelated content in the same article, and so far, one other editors in the discussion I began has chimed in to agree with me. Nightscream (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It relates to all reverts you have performed within an article, it's that simple. They've agreed to the unrelated edits, yes, which I also agree with, because new content isn't a revert. However, 1) Miesianiacal listed your five reverts above, and they are all reverts, whether it's concerning "whether involving the same or different material", and 2) further editors have now agreed against your point of view here. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not join the discussion so we can keep this in one place? Nightscream (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will bring to your attention before you possibly break WP:3RR again that you are presently at three reverts within 24 hours at The Worldwide Privacy Tour:

Please resolve disputes following WP:DR. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ask others input (Re: Worldwide Privacy Tour and 3RR)

Howdy. The best way to avoid getting blocked for edit-warring, when in a content dispute with another editor, is to open an RFC, on the disputed topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is outside the scope of the question I posed.
Just because posting an RfC is a prescribed method for communicating possible or extant editorial disputes does not mean that the question of whether revering undispusted portions of an article goes to 3RR is not a reasonable or relevant one to ask.
You've been peddling this pet RfC cause of yours now on three different talk pages for the past day, first on the episode article, then on the edit warring tp, and now here. I think it's safe to say that others have seen your message. User:Miesianiacal, in fact, already replied to it on the edit warring discussion page. You don't have to post it on three different talk pages, unless you really feel that you need an explicit response from multiple editors that badly. But if so, here it is. I read your messages. All three of them. Thank you for your input. I had been thinking of asking SanAnMan to weigh in on the episode article, as a sort of third opinion. I just haven't gotten around to it yet. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do it, the way you think is best. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:3O very clearly details how the third opinion should be an uninvolved, outside editor. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited material on Tom King, et al.

Because for some reason you're threatening to block me. Can you explain to me why I can't list the other titles that Tom King has written including supergirl woman of tomorrow in the lead? How exactly is this "uncited material" when it is listed in his bibliography. By not including these, his lead is literally not up to date. Grant morrison gets to have all their titles listed in the lead but not tom king. It makes no sense. Why must I cite that when the line "Batman and Mister Miracle for DC Comics" isn't cited? 173.66.8.230 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to add a bit more information to the Kieron Gillen article lead. Specifically the recent title he wrote Once & Future which is not listed at all in his lead. Also I would like to add a brief line about how he has literally been nominated for 6 hugo awards. Other novelist get mentioned in their leads that they have been nominated for hugos but not comic writers? I feel like there is a bias among wiki editors to updating comic writers articles and affording them the same respect as novelists.

Can you explain to me how I have to cite this material when it is listed already in Awards and accolades and his Bibliography? I don't want to be banned apparently. I don't know why you have to threaten to ban me when all I did was add information that has already been cited and followed the rules you informed me about before. All I want to do is just add a little information. I'm not a full time editor like you. I really don't want to fight man 173.66.8.230 (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@173.66.8.230: No one said that you cannot add other titles to the article, including, where appropriate, the lede.
What I have said is what I and one other editor (Materialscientist) explicitly stated on your talk page on at least four occassions now, yet you don't seem to be very interested in learning those policies and guidelines, despite the numerous wikilinks we provided to you. I'll say it one more time:
Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here.
Can a published work (a film, TV episode, novel, comic book) function as its own primary source for its mere existence and its content (i.e.: its plot and its credits)? So long as the material in question is only the work's existence and content, and is not evaluative, analytical, or interpretive, then yes. But per both this site's No Original Research policy, as well as its guideline on writing about fiction, any content not found in that work, or which is valuative, analytical, or interpretive, you need a secondary source, and you indeed made claims in your edit that are not covered by the primary source rule. Specifically:
"...writing various critically acclaimed..."
"...focusing on obscure or specific characters.."
"As well as the limited series Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow which is set to be adapted into a film by DC Studios."
None of these claims are found in the Bibliography, nor are they supported by sources (or even mentioned) anywhere else in the article.
You asked me "How was that information unverifiable?" Did you include a citation for that material? No. You did not.
Apart from that, the passage "As well as the limited series Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow which is set to be adapted into a film by DC Studios." is not a sentence.
If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, then GREAT! Welcome! Let me help you! But you have to learn this site's rules if you want to edit here, and refusing to click on those linked policies and guidelines (which appears evident from your questions to me), is not the way to go about doing it. Wikipedia is a collaboratie community that welcomes new editors, but if you want to join this community, you have to learn how it does things. Refusing to do so, and prompting warnings about your policy violations on at least four different occasions, is not an indication that you're interested in following this site's rules on how to collaborate, and neither is calling other editors "insane" for pointing this out, which violates WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA.
If you want to add material to Wikipedia's articles, be it Tom King, or Kieron Gillen, or any other article, then please learn Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and adhere to them. If you need help with this (like with things like how to write citations, which ones are considerd relaible, etc.), then let me know, and I'd be happy to give you pointers, and even help you by working with you in your early forays into these endeavors. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but how come other writers have critically acclaimed in their leads? Is it because there is a citation?
So if I was to simply list the other titles that Tom King has written in his lead paragraph is that all right?
Also with Kieron Gillen, Do I need a citation for the hugo awards he has been nominated for? 173.66.8.230 (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. Either there should be a citation in that passage, in the lede, or it should be cited elsewhere in the article. MOS:CITELEAD covers when to include citations in the lede. If there is a claim in the lede that is not supported by a cite somewhere in the article, then it is a violation of Wikipedia's policies on Verifiability, original research and/or source citation, and should be cited, or removed.
2. The lede should be a summary of the article's most salient points, so while you don't have to include every title a writer has written, you should summarize the ones that go to that writer's notability, and avoid any analytical claims about those titles not in secondary source citations.
3. Of course, absolutely. Critical reception/accolades/criticism received by a given work or its creators should obviously never be included without the citations from which that information is derived. Hope this helps. Nightscream (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So are we good? If I make another mistake are you going to block me? I'm just new. I'm trying to learn all the rules. 173.66.8.230 (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, you were not warned because you made a "mistake". You were warned because you violated this site's policies and guidelines, and did so repeatedly, refusing to stop. The first instance could have been assumed to have been a misunderstanding, or a "mistake" if you prefer. The third and fourth are not.

Second, I'm not an administrator, so I don't have the power to block you personally. In the event that such a thing becomes necessary, it's my practice to contact one of the admins I know who can do this.

Apart from this, so long as you cease violating these policies, then yes, we're good. Let me know if you need any help with anything. Peace. Nightscream (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So if a book is mentioned in a writer's bibliography can I mention it in the lead without a citation? Like for example I want to write add that Kieron Gillen wrote Once and Future which is cited in his bibliography. I also want to mention that he has been nominated for numerous hugo awards which is also cited in the Awards and accolades section. 173.66.8.230 (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See my previous answers. Regarding which titles to mention in lede, see Point #2 above in my 17:32, 9 April 2023 message.
Also, if you're going to do more than one-off edits (that is, if you're going to edit here more than once), you're expected to create a username account. It makes it easier for others to communicate with you as an individual one-on-one. Nightscream (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Morasca revert

You addressed one part of my removal at Jenna Morasca by adding an archive link (thank you), but not the main reason - the rating was changed from -4 star to -5 star in the edit immediately preceeding mine. So you added the archive link but didn't address the crux of the issue, which is the discrepancy in the content.-- Ponyobons mots 17:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The archive link was already in the cite template. If the rating was changed, why not just provide the correct number? Nightscream (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't know what the correct number is, which is why I removed it until it can be confirmed. You restored it - did you confirm the correct number?-- Ponyobons mots 18:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see now. The other essentially added uncited material, something that I routinely revert. Sorry I missed that. No, I don't know that the number that had been in the article was incorrect, and since that editor did not cite a source, I reverted it just now, and left a message on their talk page informating them of Wikipedia's sourcing policies. Sorry I missed that earler. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I couldn't access the video yesterday, and today my audio output is borked. I just wanted to make sure that when you restored the material you had checked to confirm the change was correct. Appreciate the follow-up!-- Ponyobons mots 18:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamo 5 images

My bad, I wholeheartedly apologise =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BoomboxTestarossa: No worries. I'm glad to see that there are other good editors for whom adhering to policy is important.
Btw, is your boombox shaped like a Ferrari Testarossa, or does your Ferrari Testabrossa have a really big boombox built-in? Or is like one of those Triple-Changers from Transformers that can change from a robot to a Testarossa to a Boombox? :-) Nightscream (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All three!
And yeah, I'm trying to patch the comic section up in line with policy as I figure better I try to at least flag stuff up and hopefully either get people to save it with the correct references or redirect it to save page history, rather than getting outright deleted; it can be a bit gruelling and I do make errors but I'm always happy to admit them. There's just only so many pages I can work on at a time, but there we go :) Appreciate your good humour about my clumsiness! BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Thompson edit

You may want to review this edit you made on Maggie Thompson, as the main thrust of your edit comment, the surname issue, is not reflected at all in the edit. (Having said that, it looks like the only place where "Maggie" should be reasonably replaced by "Thompson" is in the Accolades section; the other uses in the article are too close to mentions of Don Thompson or Stephen Thompson, where using the first name keeps the statement from being ambiguous. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about Don Thompson or Stephen Thompson. It's about Maggie Thompson. This is why, per WP:SURNAME, you use her surname, and use given names for all others with the same surname.
Thanks for pointing out my silly mistake of failing to fix the issue even though I cited it in the edit summary. Hate it when that happens. :) Nightscream (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see MOS:SAMESURNAME, particularly the phrase unless the reference is part of a list of family members or if use of the surname alone will be confusing. When it comes just after the mention of Stephen Thompson, referring to Maggie just as "Thompson" qualifies as confusing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatGertler: Point taken. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hey I was just curious you and other editors aren't using Bounding into Comics as a source in wiki articles are you? I wanted to let you know since you seem to do a lot of editing and know a lot of the other editors. Bounding into Comics is a right wing pop culture news site that has heavy bias and thus a lot of their articles contain misinformation and can't be confirmed. Just thought you should know since I feel like I've seen that site occasionally cited on some articles. 173.66.8.230 (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@173.66.8.230: I may have cited it as a source, though I can't recall for certain, nor the last time I might've done so, offhand. Nightscream (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC) Nightscream (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. Yeah you should be careful about that site. It's not trustworthy. And heavily skews facts in order to support an alt right perspective. I don't think any mainstream entertainment news site considers them legitimate. They are aligned with the alt right. They're like Breitbart News. Here's a more in depth analysis of them if you want to read more. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bounding-into-comics/ Just thought I should warn you and other editors about this site. 173.66.8.230 (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@173.66.8.23: Thanks for the heads up. Perhaps it should be added to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Someone said on that page's talk page that it summarizes past discussions and is not intended to be an exhaustive list of sources. I related in that discussion what you said. You should definitely join it and see if we can follow-up on the suggestion I made there about an exhaustive list. Nightscream (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow I didn't know that source list existed thanks for letting me know about it. I will check the discussion you linked. Yeah no problem. Truthfully I don't really know if Bounding into comics is that notable at least compared to other sites that cover comics news like CBR and the beat. I don't think they're very well known or get that much traffic. But I felt like I saw it cited enough that it warranted mentioning. 173.66.8.230 (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Big Two Comics

Notice

The article Big Two Comics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Zero cited sources establishing notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:ToddAllenGates.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ToddAllenGates.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:6.20.19JohnRomitaJrByLuigiNovi1.jpg

Is it ok to upload this photo to his WikiTree profile citing the page and you as author? https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Romita-14 Azurerae (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I am explicitly/visibily credited by name, sure. Go right ahead. It's why I take and upload such photos. Thanks for asking. 22:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Here it is: https://www.wikitree.com/photo/jpg/Romita-14
Wikimedia Commons contributors, "File:6.20.19JohnRomitaJrByLuigiNovi1.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:6.20.19JohnRomitaJrByLuigiNovi1.jpg&oldid=769435064 (accessed June 14, 2023).
Author: Luigi Novi
Uploaded with permission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nightscream#File%3A6.20.19JohnRomitaJrByLuigiNovi1.jpg Azurerae (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Azurerae: I don't see any credit. Nightscream (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's there as shown in the reply above, it's just that the privacy is set so that you can't see the comment where it's at. If you do a trusted list request for the profile, you'll have access to see it. https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Romita-14&action=joinnetwork Azurerae (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Azurerae: How do you do that? Nightscream (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, should i just add an image of your username to the lower corner of the picture and reupload? Profiles of living notables have higher privacy setting so only the thumbnail of the image will show. I'm going to add the the citation to the profile:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Romita-14#Sources
Will that work? Azurerae (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but please use my real name, and not my username. Nightscream (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Ross picture

Can you change the picture of Alex Ross from 2003 to the image in this link https://www.alexrossart.com/pages/bio? The current picture in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Ross article is out of date and not clear at all. The image I linked is the current image of himself that Alex Ross uses for promotional things and his social media. It's the most up to date image of Ross there is. I have no idea how to change the profile picture of wikipedia articles. I tried reading the rules but I do not understand it at all. I figured since you're an experienced editor you would know. 173.66.8.230 (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've never liked that photo in his article either. But we can't upload images that we don't own the copyright to. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Nightscream (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh interesting. Man wiki really has a lot of rules. Luckily I'm just a reader. 173.66.8.230 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@173.66.8.230: Well, copyright is one that many people take seriously. But thanks for inquiring. If you can contact Mr. Ross to ask him or his people if they'd like to release that nice portrait into the public domain, or upload a free-licensed pic that's better than the one currently in his article, that'd be great too. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh I never thought of that. This would be interesting to check out. 173.66.8.230 (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmin St. Claire

Information icon Hello, I'm FMSky. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Jasmin St. Claire, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. FMSky (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FMSky: Hi. Thanks for your correction. I looked again at the article, and see that I accidentally looked at the wrong source. Sorry about that. However, all editors make mistakes, which is not what the phrase "passive aggressive" means, and making such comments violates Wikipedia's civility policy. If you must disagree with or criticize other editors, please do so without violating such policies. There's no reason to insult or attack another edtior for merely making a good-faith error. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i literally said in my edit summary that it was only a revert though (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1162034761&oldid=1146059573&title=Jasmin_St._Claire&curid=1406808 ) so why would you assume that i made an unsourced edit? --FMSky (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FMSky: I focused on the content of the edit, and the cited source, neglecting to to take notice of the edit summary, which I normally don't do. Again, sorry about that. Nightscream (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skarr

I'm very sorry for adding uncited material on the page like that. I made a very terrible mistake. I didn't know what I was doing. Please forgive me. 172.13.193.84 (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@172.13.193.84: And yet, you're still doing it.
You cite, for example, Planet Skaar Prologue #1 for the claim that "Skaar has powers inherited from both his parents, including combat and swordmanship skills", that book does not establish this. It merely shows him carrying a sword, but barely illustrates that he has any particular skill with it, much less that he "inherited" this from his parents.
You also cite Wolverine: Origins #47 for his healing ability, even though Skaar does not appear in that issue, which was published in October 2006, a full year before the first appearance of the earliest version of Skaar (which was a cameo at the end of an alternate universe story in What If?), and two years before the Marvel-616 version of the character appeared.
I've removed the uncited material from the section, and added both primary and secondary sources to support the material, as well as other details from those sources. But I do not intend to clean up your messes every time you decide that this site's policies and guidelines (which I've linked to on your talk page) don't apply to you.
Consider this your final warning. The next time you add material that is not supported by the sources you cite, I will contact an administrator to have you blocked from editing. Nightscream (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1.Okay, I'll stop.
2.I didn't cite Wolverine: Origins #47 for his healing ability, it was for his enhanced senses, he did appear in that issue, and it was published in June 2010.
3.About the other cite for Planet Skaar Prologue #1 isn't for that, it was for "Like his father, the Hulk". 172.13.193.84 (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@172.13.193.84:
First, I apologize for my error regarding Wolverine Origins. I thought the issue being cited was #7. Looking over issue #47, it does not make any explicit mention of his healing ability. It does show him shrugging off an explosion from an RPG, but that could be due either to a healing ability or his resistance to injury. So I restored that issue citation, but only to describe his durability. Other sources were cited for his healing ability, including IGN and Marvel's website.
Regarding the other matters, cites must be placed at the end of the supported material, per WP:PAIC. You placed the citation of Planet Skaar Prologue #1 at the end of the passage that reads Skaar has powers inherited from both his parents, including combat and swordmanship skills. Like his father, the Hulk... That means, by way of appearance, that you were citing that issue for that entire passage, including "combat and sword" skills. If you intended to cite only for a portion of it, then you should've done so for that portion, and retained the fact-tag for the portion that remained unsupported. And what precisely does it mean to cite the passage "Like his father, the Hulk"? You were citing the fact that his dad is the Hulk??? Isn't that already cited further up in the article? C'mon.
Look closely at how I composed the material, and placed citations at the appropriate places. Read those cited sources, and you'll see that they say what the corresponding passages in the Skaar article says. That's how you do it. Nightscream (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that I also didn't cite Planet Skaar Prologue #1 for Skaar has powers inherited from both his parents, including combat and swordmanship skills., it was for Like his father, the Hulk, that's what I talking about. 172.13.193.84 (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I responded to that point above. Nightscream (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Hulk is Skaar's father, isn't he? 2600:1700:B030:EC0:E0E1:C207:6095:1311 (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And I responded to that point above. Please read it. Nightscream (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I have restored my talk page message, after you deleted it with this edit. And btw, editors who intend to do more than a one-off edit are expected to sign in for a username account. Please adhere to that guideline. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1.Oh, never mind.
2. Okay, I understand. Thank you. 172.13.193.84 (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Brick: Odd (very old) source

Hello, Nightscream: A source you cited in the article Scott Brick, back in 2012 (diff), is now a dead link. I don’t see the connection between an audiobook narrator and a healthy blender recipes site, and am wondering if that was added in error.

It’s a long way back, but do you remember if that was the correct link in the citation? If not, I might as well remove it instead of merely tagging it as a dead link. ManuelKomnenos (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the diff doesn’t work, I see. I’ll try and correct that. ManuelKomnenos (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Diff/523665574 There it is. ManuelKomnenos (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ManuelKomnenos: You're lucky I can remember what I had for breakfast this morning, let alone an article I edited 11 years ago. :-)
All joking aside, I have no memory of Scott Brick, and don't remember my edits. Looking over that article's edit history, I see the edits from November 18, 2012, and sure enough, I cited a source from a blender recipe cite. It's dead now, but I found an archived version that I found at the Internet Archive, and added it to the article just now. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nightscream Thank you for your help! Curiously, I remember what I had for breakfast in 2012, but only because I’ve been eating the same thing every morning for at least 11 years. However, this is a digression. ManuelKomnenos (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. You're welcome. Nightscream (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Compromised (book)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Compromised (book), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Forrest J Ackerman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barbarella.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on DeLorean time machine

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page DeLorean time machine, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Cassette tape

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cassette tape, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REPEATCITE

Please bring your revision of WP:REPEATCITE to the talk page. The standard of article, not paragraph, is long-standing. ——Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mall edits

Hello, just wanted to introduce myself. I'm interested in the evolution of shopping malls and would like mall pages to accurately reflect the state malls are in 2023. I look forward to working with you and appreciate your input. Thanks! Myzigzag (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Myzigzag:
Thanks for reaching out to me. Please read learn the policies and guidelines I linked to on your talk page, and in my edit summaries.
The Womens Wear Daily article you cited in your last edit does not mention any of the stores you listed, nor does the word "traditional" appear in that article, nor in the mall webpage you cited, which is not a secondary source anyway. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Myzigzag: You need to stop your disruptive editing. It does not matter if a word is "commonplace". What matters if that you have a source that supports this.
  • The sources you cited do not mention the words "traditional" or "high end".
  • The sources you cited do not mention any of the stores you keep listing.
  • In any event, why does this justify repeatedly removing the paragraph on the anchors?
It seems that you're attempting to indiscriminately throw any ol' source in the article, perhaps in the hope that that --- what? That I won't read it to see if it contains the information in question? I have. And they don't.
If you cease this disruptive pattern, you risk being blocked from editing. Please do not make that necessary. Learn this site's policies and guidlines, and cease violating them. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sorry for the confusion, the article has traditional in the headline I thought that would be sufficient. I also trusted that the primary source would be enough for the specialty retailers. I guess my question is how come it isn't? It appears primary sources are allowed in this case. Thank you! Myzigzag (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Myzigzag:The headline of which source? Nightscream (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The inquirer. This is the source. https://www.inquirer.com/philly/business/20160103_Traditional_mall_anchors_are_fading_away.html Myzigzag (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nightscream&oldid=1171547802"