Jump to content

User talk:Nightscream

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Star Mississippi (talk | contribs) at 02:38, 19 October 2022 (→Palisades Center 2: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

"Comics Wikiproject" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Comics Wikiproject and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#Comics Wikiproject until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Message from the Past

Found this while investigating. Passing along. [User Contribs: Tyciol](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Tyciol&target=Tyciol) >04:12, 4 January 2010 diff hist −3‎ User talk:Tyciol ‎ unfortunately I don't know how to disable bots like this from posting, but in the case of the Ivan Brandon article, it looks like User:Nightscream created that out of a redirect I made, plz tell him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:F201:54D7:D560:A0F:48D1:C989 (talk)

Latest appearance of Garfield characters

Hi!

Noticed your massive revert of uncited material for latest appearance and the need for secondary sources. Well, sometimes it is as simple as just checking the web site, IF they have been in the comic before, but it will take some time clicking to verify... :) Garfield's fan wiki has records of the dates, I noticed now, but, it's a wikipage, and not reliable. It doesn't seem that the requested information is (was) collected anywere else than these two sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Garfield_characters

--Kejo (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kejo: In addition to the fact that websites with user-generated info, (including other wikis, Patch Media, IMDb), are not considered reliable under WP:USERG, there's the fact that the content in an article that goes to the topic's notability must be accompanied by citations of secondary sources, and not primary sources. I know you don't edit here that often, but since you've been doing so for six years, it's important to adhere to the policies and guidelines summarized at WP:GNG. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Ford Buick" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ford Buick and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 31#Ford Buick until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. A7V2 (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My messages to Allen2

Nightscream, how do you know that I don't edit here often, which I popup on Wikipedia at anytime when I just learned from the news? Maybe you shouldn't say how many edits I've made on Wikipedia since I started editing here, so does other users when you noted them about their edits that often came up without citing a reliable source or two, because what you said to me and them was creepy. —Also, since you manually undo-ed my hat-note edit, why do you think those words should not be included in that hat-note as you said it's "grammatically incoherent"? Is that edit too wordy for you on that hat-note in that article? Between "Chumlee" and "Chumley", these names are often distinguished with a similar pronunciation that is not to be confused with. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 21:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Allen2:
"Nightscream, how do you know that I don't edit here often..."
There are a number of different edit counters you can use, both to look up a given article or page's stats or those of an editor. The one I use right now is X's Edit Counter. You can look up my stats, your stats, or anyone else's since this is all transaparent. I'm sorry if my words came across as "creepy". Wikipedia has policies requiring civility and the assumption of good faith, which means, among other things that we shouldn't overreact with newcomers (or, in my opinion, those who don't edit here regularly or that often, and may not know all the policies or guidelines). Since upholding policy requires us to sometimes tell editors when their edits violate these policies, and since this can sometimes result in bad feelings if we're not careful, I try to couch my messages in a tone of understanding and friendliness. I was just trying to say, "Okay, I know you may not edit here as often as I do or as regularly or whatever, so in case you didn't know about this policy or that policy, I thought I'd let you know about it."
"Also, since you manually undo-ed my hat-note edit, why do you think those words should not be included in that hat-note as you said it's "grammatically incoherent"?
No, it is not too wordy, but it is disjointed. Look at how the hat note reads in the saved version of the article after you edited it. It says:

This article is about the reality television personality. For other subjects named "Chumley", which is not to be confused with, see Chumley. For the American entrepreneur, see Austin Russell (entrepreneur).

That second sentence, as you can see, is not coherent. That is to say, it does not exhibit a clear, comprehensible structure that adheres to rules of grammar or synatx. I notice you seem to write in this way as a pattern, as with the first three sentences of your message above. From this I gather that writing coherent sentences is not your strong suit; I sympathize, and apologize for having to point this out, since I don't want to make you feel bad, but since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, making sure that what we compose obeys the basic rules of writing is necessary.
Btw, thanks for fixing my ref tag error on Jan 26. It is much appreciated. :-) Nightscream (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Palisades Center

Hey there hope this is the best way to reach you. I understand your policy edits however I'd like to discuss this. I think my edit is better for the page because theres not too many gossipy details. As for the peacock phrase I believe legendary is the correct word. As for slang I think theres an exception to use eyed since we're discussing real estate development. I think its better to leave so much detail about city councils vision for the mall off Wikipedia as it frankly violates policy. Mentioning town council is also much more than im trying to convey. Perhaps we come to a conclusion together before we update again. Thanks! Complexhistorian (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Complexhistorian: First of all, reverting an article during a discussion is considered edit-warring and is a blockable offense. Since you're still new to Wikipedia, I'm not going to make a huge deal of it, though I hope we can resolve this here.
"I think my edit is better for the page because theres not too many gossipy details."
Again, none of the information I included in my edit consistuted "gossip". If you disagree, then please point out which details I included fall under that word's definition.
"As for the peacock phrase I believe legendary is the correct word."
It constitutes a subjective opinion that is not attributed to any source, rather than a fact, so it is puffery, and therefore, not "correct". Did you read WP:PEACOCK?
Moreover, it is not relevant to the article, since the article is about the mall, and not that store chain. Mention that a certain chain is "legendary" may be relevant in an article on that store, and only then if it reflects what sources say in a way that goes to its notability. But such a thing should never been casually mentioned in a tangentially-related article without a source.
"As for slang I think theres an exception to use eyed since we're discussing real estate development."
Real estate is not an exception to WP:TONE, which instructs to avoid slang or jargon. Again, did you that guideline?
"I think its better to leave so much detail about city councils vision for the mall off Wikipedia as it frankly violates policy.
Which policy, and how does it violate it?
Also, why does mention of the Hilton plans not violate this same policy?
"Mentioning town council is also much more than im trying to convey.
Yes, I know it's more than what you tried to convey. I added it because I believe it goes to how institutions like the PC are effected by the changing economy, which is relevant to the topic's notability. Do you disagree?
Also, that source you cited for the Hilton matter, which was published in April 2020, states, "The Palisades Center had been trying to develop a Hilton Hotel at the Lord & Taylor space before the pandemic but that project is not likely to proceed." In other words, those plans are no longer in development.
Lastly, I noticed that in your most recent revert, you deleted the Daily Voice citation from which the store's closure was derived, and the RCBJ article you replaced it with does not support that fact. Why did you do this? Nightscream (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with you mentioning the city council. Its tabloid like and violates policy its one point of view that the center has been impacted by the economy. As for the hilton hotel mention, the article states they were certainly trying to build it and its their opinion its not likely to build. This is the only real development on the site. As for your other comments, I understand, I think its important we dont go into too much detail as well as bringing up city council, it suggests the center could be struggling which seems incorrect. I think we either keep it simple and mention just the store closing, or we include any developments that doesnt undermine the current success of the mall. Complexhistorian (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Complexhistorian:
"I strongly disagree with you mentioning the city council. Its tabloid like..."
It is not "tabloid-like".
Tabloid journalism refers to sensationalist journalism (usually dramatized and sometimes unverifiable or even blatantly false). The passage in question says that Clarkstown Councilman Donald Franchino stated that the mall needed to diversify in its pursuit of moving toward a greater a mixture of retail and entertainment which is not sensationalistic, dramatizied, unverifiable, or apparently false, and that information comdes from an article published in the Daily Voice. The Wikiepdia article on the Daily Voice indicates that it is a community journalism company specializing in hyperlocal media, that is based in Norwalk, Connecticut, and currently operates a significant number of town-based news web sites in Westchester County, Dutchess County, Putnam County, Rockland County in New York; Bergen County, Passaic County in New Jersey; and Fairfield County, Connecticut.
So how is it "tabloid-like" or "gossipy" What definitions of those terms are you using?
"...and violates policy,"
Again, what policy? I asked you this above, and you haven't answered it. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2005, and am not aware of any policy violated by that passage. Can you please cite this policy?
"its one point of view that the center has been impacted by the economy."
You're suggesting that it's possible for a huge shopping mall to not be affected by changes in the national and international economy, which includes the retail apocalypse, and a pandemic that caused skyrocketing unemployment, damage to the supply chain that we're still feeling, ? Seriously? Again, do you even understand what it means to say that this is "one point of view"? Of course a mall is affected by the economy! All businesses are!
And if I'm wrong, then fine: Please articulate how the Palisades Center has not be affected by the economy.
"As for the hilton hotel mention, the article states they were certainly trying to build it and its their opinion its not likely to build."
Right. Not likely to build. So you're talking about including mention of plans that fell through, but not including source-supported mention of something a local politician said the mall needs to do in order to maintain economic viability. Again, I've been editing Wikipedia for some time, now, and we do not mention any ol' thing irrespective of whether it's relevant to the article topic. Please see WP:NOT and WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is cautious about whether to mention possible future events, so it's far less likely to mention intended plans that have been canceled or abandoned.
"This is the only real development on the site."
In your opinion. It is not your place (or mine) to decide what is a "real development" on the site. Our jobs as Wikipedia editors is to relate what is stated in reliable, secondary sources that are cited in the article. That goes to the core policies of WP:Verifiability, No Original Research, Neutrality, etc.
"As for your other comments, I understand, I think its important we dont go into too much detail as well as bringing up city council, it suggests the center could be struggling which seems incorrect. I think we either keep it simple and mention just the store closing, or we include any developments that doesnt undermine the current success of the mall.
Excuse me?
Um, no, that's not how it works.
We are not here to promote (or for that matter, denigrate) the mall or any other business. Our job is to relate the FACTS that are given in sources. Period. Nothing more. Nothing less. Whether giving certain information gives the reader cause to think a business is struggling is not for us to decide one way or another. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. It is an encyclopedia that gives tertiary information based primarily on secondary sources. But with this comment, you make it clear that you do not understand this very fundamental principle.
I also that notice you still haven't explained why you deleted the citation of the Daily Voice that supports the closure of the Lord & Taylor. Why is this?
Your edits and the rationales you have offered for them not only are out of line with these policies, they make little coherent sense and give little indication that you have genuinely read the various pages I have linked you to in earnest. Again, you really need to read and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As it stands, we are not retaining your policy violations. Nightscream (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasnt my intention to remove that source hence me not mentioning it. I am strongly opposed to your edit, bringing up city council because of one store closure is too much. Mentioning city council firmly suggests the entire mall is in jeopardy which isnt true. Complexhistorian (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC) 22:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Complexhistorian:
No, it does not. That is an interpretation entirely of your own fabrication, motivated by a concern to promote the mall, which as I mentioned above, violates clearly-stated Wikipedia policies for which I provided links.
And you still haven't named the policy that you claimed is violated by the inclusion of that information. I'll ask you one more time: Which policy?
And again, how is it "gossip" or "tabloid", vis a vis the definitions of those words? I keep asking you this, and for some reason, you're not answering.
Bottom line: the source cited mentions it, which makes it reasonable for inclusion, given the topic, and the fact that the economic is changing with respect to shopping malls. (Sources: [1][2][3][4]) That is the criterion by which inclusion of material is determined, and not whether someone decides to take a citation-supported fact and read into it a completely different idea that bears no resemblance to it. Such a behavior is not Wikipedia's fault, and not Wikipedia's problem. Nightscream (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How come you are insisting I'm motivated by promoting the mall? As editors we have a responsibility, your edit simply suggests the entire mall is failing which is irresponsible as well as incorrect.Complexhistorian (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Complexhistorian:
"How come you are insisting I'm motivated by promoting the mall?"
Because you admitted it above when you said, "I think we either keep it simple and mention just the store closing, or we include any developments that doesnt undermine the current success of the mall."
One more time for the cheap seats:
It is not our job to avoid "undermining" the success of an article subject, ay more than it is to promote it. Our job is to summarize coverage of an article subject that appears in reliable, secondary sources. Period. Anything along the lines of what you indicate violates WP:NOT. I'll ask you point blank: Did you or did you not read WP:NOT after I linked you to it?
"...your edit simply suggests the entire mall is failing..."
No it doesn't. The two statements bear no resemblance to one another. You are simply taking one to say that the statement "The mall needed to diversify in its pursuit of moving toward a greater a mixture of retail and entertainment" is somehow the same thing as suggesting "the entire mall is failing" is a distortion so blatant that it is reasonble to call it a lie, or at mininum, evidence of a severe reading comprehension problem.
The simple fact is that the first statement does have anything to do with the second, and if you can't admit that, then you need to improve your reading ability, and/or find a Net hobby other than editing an encyclopedia.
And you still haven't explained which "policy" was violated that by the passage, or how it constituted "gossip" or "tabloid" journalism. This is now the fourth time I'm pointing this out to you. Why won't you answer this question? Is it because you know those claims were false when you made them? If not, then why won't you answer them?
I think I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I first encountered your edits, and wanted to be encouraging to a newcomer. At this point, however, I think I'm done pointing out your varoius policy violations, falsehoods, and non sequiturs. Either answer my points directly, or please stop bothering me. Your edits with respect to that passage are not going to be kept if you don't. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt complicated like you seem to be making it, I disagree with your edit why arnt you willing to work with me? I think lord and taylors closure and the city councils comments have little to do with each other, the mall is successful so I disagree with their statements. I think its best to leave it as lord and taylor closed, using that particular quote along with lord and taylor paints this mall as failing, to be fair you shouldnt use this quote.Complexhistorian (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"This isnt complicated like you seem to be making it."
Agreed. The matter is rather simple. Your edits violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Period.
That is not a complicated point, and I never said it was.
"I think lord and taylors closure and the city councils comments have little to do with each other."
The cited source explicitly says that they are.
Observe: "Clarkstown Councilman Donald Franchino confirmed the closure of the store, saying the center needs to diversify and become a mixture of retail and entertainment."
In other words, the mall's needs to diversify was explained in the context of L&T's closure, and to assert the contrary flies directly in the face of what the cited source explicitly states. Whether you "think" otherwise is irrelevant. We go by what sources say. Not your fabricated notions of whether the information is true or false.
"...the mall is successful so I disagree with their statements."
One more time for the cheap seats:
We don't care.
Wikipedia does not care about your personal opinion.
Wikipedia presents information from secondary sources. It does not present the opinions of its editors, nor does it decide issues of inclusion on that basis, since doing so violates Wikipedia's policies on editor neutrality, original research, and other conflicts of interest, such as the requirement that we not treat the encyclopedia like a promotional platorm. I've explained and linked you to these various policies throughout this discussion, but not once have ever couched your responses in terms of those policies, or given any indication that you've even read them, even though I've explcitly asked you about this repeatedly, and you have repeatedly refused to directly answer these questions.
The bottom line remains: Wikipedia is someone else's property -- specifically, that of the Wikimedia Foundation. When you visit someone else's property, you are obligated to respect the rules that they set down for it. Those of us who come here to edit must follow the policies and guidelines that reflect the consensus of the editing community here. If we can't, then we can't edit here.
The statement made by that councilman is about what the mall needs to do in order to diversify. Nothing about "success" or lackthereof. Your opinion to the contrary is irrelevant, and has no place on Wikipedia. Period. Nightscream (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Parker (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

Hi there. My issue is with the way the sentence regarding Uncle Ben is worded, "Although to date the main timeline version of the MCU has not explicitly mentioned his Uncle Ben, Spider-Man: Homecoming wirter John Francis Daley stated that Peter's reference in that film to all that May had been through was a reference to Ben". That sounds so sloppy, "all May had been through" - meaning what? Perhaps this line would be better served under Characterization as opposed to Fictional character biography, since Uncle Ben has not actually been mentioned in the MCU as of yet. There is already a reference to him in that section - "The MCU depiction of Peter Parker omits explicit reference to Uncle Ben, whose death was a significant event both in the comic books and in previous film series. The one exception is "What If... Zombies?!", in which a variant of Parker mentions everyone who has died in his life in the universe seen in that episode". It would be pretty simple to expand on this by adding in John Francis Daley's information. Thoughts? Thanks.

Bloodyboppa (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The section mentions May as his primary parental figure, so a note mentioning Ben, and clarifying that an oblique allusion made by Peter in dialogue was a reference to Ben, is perfectly reasonable. It really has nothing to do with characterization. And yes, we most certainly can mention actor names and other behind-the-scenes info in character biographies. Character biographies not only don't have to be entirely written in an in-univese manner, but WP:OUTUNIVERSE flat-out says not to.
Regarding the wording and the redundancy, sorry about that; I missed it. I copyedited it just now to clarify what Peter was alluding to, and to remove the redundant mention of Ben, which had been worded to imply that it was established on-screen when it really wasn't. Hope that helps. Nightscream (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Western Electric

Thanks for reviewing my edits to Western Electric. I am sorry that you had to revert my edits for lack of references. I am a retired telecommunications engineer with employment experience at Bell Telephone Laboratories, or, simply, Bell Labs, (which designed products manufactured by Western Electric), GTE Lenkurt, BNR Inc. (designed products manufactured by Northern Telecom) and Wiltron. I am new to editing Wikipedia. If you approve of what I wrote, and I think you do except for the stated reason, I'll add references. Most of the references will be to articles already in Wikipedia, for example Hush-A-Phone, acoustic couplers (I'll change modem to coupler), GTE Lenkurt (as Lenkurt Electric Company), Wiltron (Anritsu article), Ericofon, Independent Telephone Company and United States Telecom Association (USITA at the time of Western Electric's dominance). I don't know if I should just edit the article, and let the page be reverted if necessary, or submit changes for review. If I edit the article, I'll change a little at a time.

Some of these referenced articles really need expansion and I'd like to contribute. Of particular interest, Lenkurt Electric Company lacks information about its years after acquisition by GTE, when I was an employee. Some of what I wrote is from my engineering and personal experience. I need to either leave it out or maybe there is a way to reference it in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Sled (talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert Sled:
Welcome to Wikipedia, Robert!
I appreciate your willingness to do the work necessary to comply with the policies and guidelines I mentioned. I would recommend, however, that you begin by reading those policy and guideline pages I linked you to. They will explain, among other things, that sources have to be secondary sources, which I mentioned in my message to you.
I notice you said that "Most of the references will be to articles already in Wikipedia." If you mean citing other Wikipedia articles as sources in the Western Electric one, please be advised that citing one Wikipedia article as a source in another is circular sourcing, and is not permitted. If I've misunderstood your statement, then I apologize. Feel free to ask me anything else if it comes up.
Also, please make sure you sign your talk page posts, which makes it easier for everyone to know who they're addressing. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, which also automatically time stamps them. Nightscream (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sonja reversion

I noticed that you reverted my wiki-linking of Die!namite on the Red Sonja page as WP:EASTEREGG. I respectfully disagree with this labelling and would love to hear your reasoning behind using it. The Die!namite link was not a piped link to an unrelated subject, rather it was a link to a dedicated page for that subject that currently is a redirect (instead of a redlink destination). Thank you for your time and I look forward to better understanding your reasoning. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ghost. Thank you for your polite attempt to reach out to me. I wish more editors did this when they disagreed with another editor.
While the link in question was not a piped link but a redirect, I think in principle the same type of problem is exhibited by it: The redirect is not transparent, and requires the reader to click on it before understanding where it leads. Instead of leading to an article or section on Die!namite, it leads to an article on crossovers, which includes a list of mostly uncited examples, one of which is Die!namite. But thinking it over a bit more, I can understand why you might object to my edit. I'm not going to belabor the point; If you want to revert it, I won't object or revert it. Nightscream (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, @Nightscream:. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this. Unless I am mistaken, given your reasoning, you should've requested the deletion of the redirect page instead of deleting the wiki-linking to the Die!namite page. This way, the redirect would've been stopped but the page's WP:REDLINK would've been maintained. I will re-add — as per your permission — the wiki-link on Red Sonja and I happily propose that you request the redirect page's deletion if you still find the destination contentious. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't really need my "permission", but again, I appreciate your willingness to talk it out. And yeah, perhaps I should have suggested deleting that redirect. Again, I'm not going to pursue it. Peace. Nightscream (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile...

The Working Man's Barnstar
17 years and more of contributions should be applauded and that you haven't had one of these yet means I can pop in and have the honour of awarding it to you. Long may you carry on! Hiding T 14:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hiding: Thanks, buddy. :) Nightscream (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States

Hi Nightscream. Just to let you know I've deleted a lot from this article. You're edit on the 14th duplicated everything starting at the Hispanics and crime section. I believe all the over changes you made are still present, but you may want to check. Thanks LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 14:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested: Okay, sorry about that. Thanks for catching my error and fixing it. Nightscream (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rejuvenate WikiProject Skepticism

Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [5] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted photo from Liberty State Park

Hello, In your recent edit to remove uncited material, you seem to have also deleted this photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Common_tern_in_flight_with_Manhattan_in_the_background.jpg. Just wanted to check if that was intentional. Shantham11 (talk)

@Shantham11: It was. There wasn't enough for room for all the photos once the uncited material was moved to the talk page. However, in looking over the article again, I observe that there is space in the Protection Act section where it could be placed, so I restored the pic, placing it in that section. Nightscream (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for restoring it. I appreciate it. Jay (User talk:Shantham11) 05:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shantham11: Any time, buddy. Nightscream (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Horror film on Wikipedia

Dear Nightscream I have a request for you for the article horror film on Wikipedia can you restore the 2010s section and the 2020s section? 107.122.97.8 03:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@107.122.97.8: Can you show me the diff in question? Nightscream (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone merged the 2010s section and the 2020s section on the horror film article for no reason can you bring the 2010s section and the 2020s section back? NightscreamJr. (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undo the 2010s to present section and bring back the 2010s section and the 2020s section. NightscreamJr. (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the History of horror films article I've already restored the 2010s and 2020s on there all you have to do is restore the 2010s section and the 2020s section on the horror film article that's all. NightscreamJr. (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nightscream (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? NightscreamJr. (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because you refuse to respond to my request for the diff in question.
Because you keep bouncing around from one project to another, even after I told you stop doing so, and now have adopted a username that appears designed to mock me, suggesting that your intentions may simply be to troll.
I'm done talking with you. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to tell you you just make it so hard for me to understand you see I'm Autistic. NightscreamJr. (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on Wikipedia now now we can talk. NightscreamJr. (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to mock you I want to be your successor. NightscreamJr. (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm successful enough without you. But tell you what, I'll put you in my last will and testament. Toodles. :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Vigil article

Thank you for recently editing the Tim Vigil article, especially as your use of {{Refimprove}} is far superior to my multitude of {{Citation needed}} inputs. As for your comment on my use of {{Unreliable source?}}, please bear in mind that it isn't questioning if the source itself as reliable rather it indicates that "it is questionable whether the source used is reliable for supporting the statement" (emphasis mine). I'm not sure if a webpage on Tim Vigil's Filmography that simply lists "Faust: Love of the Damned (2001); Role: Book as Source Material" is really enough to support "The book's main storyline, Faust: Love of the Damned, was adapted by director Brian Yuzna as the 2001 film of the same name."

And, out of curiosity, where did the phrase "demonic-themed series" come from? Without a source, I'd personally say it breaks WP:NEUTRAL.

Also, while I fully understand how it can easily happen, if you are going to name a user in your comment ("Remove uncited material by The Ghost of Art Toys Past") make sure that they are indeed the source of said uncited material; in this instance, the uncited material all pre-dated my first edit on the page, though I should've removed it as you did instead of trying to tighten the wording and adding {{Citation needed}} templates. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Ghost of Art Toys Past: The uncited material I removed was that which you added in these edits. There was no source, for example, for the claim that the book is a "mature readers" one. This is a subjective idea, and is not found in any well-developed article on a comics series of a similar tone, such as Preacher, The Boys, Saga, etc. "Demonic", by contrast, is not an opinion, nor subjective, as there are demons in the book. But I chose this mainly to substitute the "mature readers" bit, so I suppose we can just dispense with that descriptor if you like.
Point taken about the New York Times cite, but in that case, the tag should be that the material is unsupported, not that the source isn't reliable. However, films can be their own primary sources for their content, per WP:FILMPLOT, so the NY Times cite is mostly something to supplement the passage with a secondary source. Perhaps the passage can be reworded to say that the series was adapted into the film, without emphasizing the storyline? Nightscream (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream: My apologies, you are correct; in moving information around and tightening things, I did change the word "adult" into "mature readers". I am not overly concerned about the "demonic-themed" mention, but it does read odd to me.
As for this your "material is unsupported" mention, which template is that? According to {{unreliable source?}}, it is the proper template to use when questioning the source's "supporting [of] the statement". Should I have used {{Better source needed}}? I would appreciate your valued insight on this matter.
At the moment, I am not worried about minor edits on this article… I am hoping to flesh it out more completely (with all appropriate citations) in the coming weeks. But thank you for taking the time to reply to me; it is appreciated. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Ghost of Art Toys Past: I believe the tag in question is [failed verification]. Nightscream (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:VeronicaCale.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:VeronicaCale.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) 18:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of birth in article body, et al.

You're using some old fashioned talk page, however that is fine. Your edits aren't though. I propose a debate.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pictureperfect2: On what? Nightscream (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few or more than that topics on here that users don't agree on. One is dob. The date of birth ONLY needs to be published or put into an article ONE time, never more. Those who say the opposite are quite likely not even in the journalism field. It's so silly to say we're placing the dob in more than once to heighten the text or we are selectively doing this in only a few articles or with more notable people. It's just wrong.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. The Lede is a summary of the article's most salient points, which means it necessarily repeats information in the article. Date of birth is a basic data point found in biographical works/articles, which is why I've always included it in the opening section of the body in the 17 years I've been editing here. Please cease blanking it from articles. Nightscream (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who is incorrect. Lede is not capitalized. Just because you have been doing this for years doesn't make it right and you should never have been doing that. You arbitrarily and all on your own decided to do this and hopefully you will retire so we can fix the mistakes. Go look up this sort of thing in encylopedias which were authorities before Wikipedia.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're also missing this key point. Being able to repeat information doesn't mean carte blanche you can repeat every single thing or most things. Why do you get to pick which things to repeat. Sure, a hometown can be repeated because you are adding links on the bottom of the page. You could pick other things to repeat. The dob is totally not needed twice. It is frankly amateurish to add it a 2nd time.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Block yourself to use your idiom. Why are you not listening? I mean for real, you don't know everything. I am sure I can find somewhere where you said that.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ya got me there. "Lede" isn't capitalized. Whew! For a second there, you almost went off on a tangent! Good thing you stayed on point, right?
I did not do so "arbitrarily", and did not do so "on my own." The second point is falsified by the fact that this is a widely accepted practice on Wikipedia. The first is falsified by the rationale I provided above regarding the function of the lede section. It also applies to the Infobox. Both tend to repeat information found in the article body, which means they necessarily repeat it, and if an article does so, that means it does not appear in the article "ONE time, never more." Simply put, mentioning the date of birth in the lede or the Infobox is not a substitute for doing so in the article body. And yes, I agree you don't have to repeat every single thing. I never said you did. What I did say was that basic data points like place and date of birth tend to be given in the article body, just as in the Infobox and the lede.
You're new here, so I say, WELCOME! But do yourself a favor: Don't throw your weight around, acting like you know better than everyone else. Putting aside the mangled spacing, casing and grammar you effected in the Mark Millar article (which makes your remark about my writing of "Lede" all the more glaring), perhaps you should make a greater point of learning Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and how they reflect the consensus of the editing community here, rather than making rude comments like "block yourself", which may violate the site's Civility policy. I'd be more than happy to help you with any questions you have in that regard. Have a a good night. Nightscream (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you are big on assuming things. I don't mind trying to come to some agreement however keep in mind anyone could be talking to you. I could be a head of state or something. You go on with guessing who knows more than whom. Keep in mind that commas are over used all over the place. If you want to spend time writing great ledes and getting articles up to par, fine. Stop with the dob debate and leave it out a 2nd time. Let's see what we can come to agree on.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Think about this idea a minute. Hardly anyone on here agrees on certain things. Maybe we could do more than a little good if we try to figure out what we agree on and do that. Maybe you can concur with me on the dob thing and repeat one or two items at most minus the dob. As for the lede or lead which Wikipedia is nonsensical in explaining and far from consistent... you have something called a news (newspaper or tv, etc. lede) which is also called a lead paragraph. Supposedly according to this site you don't introduce new information but you do. The lede on here has the individual's family names, place of birth, education information, and usually one more factoid. That is specifically new info.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter who I'm talking to. Anyone who wishes to edit Wikipedia is required to follow its policies and guidelines. I have not made any assumptions regarding "who knows more than whom." Making such assumptions is not only a type of ad hominem logical fallacy, and irrelevant to the specific points of contention in this discussion, but may also violate WP:AGF. For this reason, I've stayed away from them, preferring to emphasize Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which reflect the consensus of the community, and its general editing practices.
If you can demonstrate, through policy, guideline, or some editor consensus, that including dates of birth in the article body, is not a widely accepted practice on Wikipedia, and that well-developed articles with both a lede section and the Infobox that mention that info don't already include the dob twice, then do so. If you can similarly argue that the presence of the dob in the opening of the article body in those articles does not mean that it appears three times, which directly falsifies your argument above, then please make your case for that as well.
For my part, I will argue that the editing community here does not follow your stated viewpoint, and as evidence of this, I will point you to the number of featured articles that demonstrate this. Featured articles (as denoted by the gold star in the upper right corner of the article) are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors, and are used as examples for writing other articles. Here are some that include the dob in the lede, the Infobox, and the opening of the first section of the article body:
Vincent van Gogh, Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace, Harold Innis, Ted Kaczynski, W. E. B. Du Bois, Eli Lilly, Samuel Adams, Cleopatra, Jefferson Davis, Harry S. Truman, Harriet Tubman, Antonin Scalia, J. R. R. Tolkien, Archimedes, Katharine Hepburn, Tom Holland, Scarlett Johansson, Walt Disney, Frank Zappa, Bob Dylan, Neil Armstrong, Charles I of England, Elizabeth II, Wayne Gretzky, Derek Jeter, the list goes on and on.
If you want further proof that the Lede is intended to summarize the most salient information in the article body — and that this means, by definition, that it's going to necessarily repeat that information — then I would point you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, which states:
"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points..."
"Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."
You're new here. I get that. I was new here once too. And since I want to be a welcoming presence to you, I will reiterate my offer to assist you in any way I reasonably can by answering questions about editing here. But when you join some type of community or organization, it is incumbent upon you to familiarize yourself with the rules of that community. If you believe that a particular practice is wrong, then you need to establish a consensus among editors that the practice in question should end, so that it is reflected in policies and guidelines. This isn't my opinion, mind you, it's specifically outlined at Wikipedia:Consensus. Please read that.
What you should not do is single out a single member of that community, and tell them to suddenly cease long-standing practics of that community, saying, "Stop with the dob debate and leave it out a 2nd time", simply because you say so. That is not the way to go about joining a collaborative project like Wikipedia.
As far as what we agree on, well, I noticed that some of your copyediting in the articles in question were pretty solid, and I kept that portion of it, making a note of explicitly referencing this in at least one of my edit summaries. In another one of my edit summaries, I acknowledged that the prior wording from before your edit also wasn't that great, and could use a tweak as a compromise. That's something, isn't it?
Now, going forward, if you don't believe that my statements here are generally reflective of the editing community here, we can invite others into this discussion and see what they have to say about the various areas we've discussed here. If their stated positions align more with your viewpoint, then that would lend credence to your view of what the content of those articles should be. If not, then it wouldn't, correct? So let me know how you'd like to proceed. Nightscream (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving uncited material to talk pages

Please do not add any uncited materials from each articles to the talk pages. Unless, keep the removal if "unsourced", please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. --49.150.104.127 (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@49.150.104.127: I will continue to source, fact tag, remove, or move to the talk page uncited material as I've been doing for the many years I've been here, per the very policy you cite, and discussions with other members of the community. Nightscream (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightscream: As per WP:BURDEN, some content from unsourced material will not moved to talk page (if it's needed). 49.150.104.127 (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@49.150.104.127: WP:BURDEN mentions no such thing. In fact, the text of that section of the policy entirely supports my practices, which is one of the reasons why I began them. But if I missed a portion of that text where it states that some material may not be moved to the tp if needed, then please quote it here. Nightscream (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Parker (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and Iron Man 2

Hey Nightscream. I'm planning to some ce on Peter Parker (Marvel Cinematic Universe)'s lede and appearances section. I was wondering what was the result/consensus of the discussion you made over at WP Comics regarding Parker as the kid from IM2? – SirDot (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SirDot: Just search that article for the word "Parker". I wanted to include the sentence stating that no MCU film or TV show had confirmed the fan theory, but another editor (I believe Adamstom.97), removed because, as I recall, there was no source for that. I disagree with this rationale, both in terms of its veracity and also its implications, but I just readded that statement to both articles after finding two sources that explicitly state this. Nightscream (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great. – SirDot (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Pugh

Hey there. I reverted your edit and explained it thoroughly but wanted to say I'd be open to discuss it on the talk page. But to add to what I wrote, there is no report saying Zach Braff and Pugh are no longer together, so the "as of" isn't necessary here. And Braff directing Pugh in a short film is also as suitable for the "career" section as it is for "personal life", so I was curious why you didn't move that along with the other materials. Thanks! KyleJoantalk 21:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KyleJoan: I never said that Pugh and Braff were no longer together. Wikipedia is not a periodical, but an encyclopedia, so it's important to note the dates and time periods when the events and statuses described took place, in lieu of dated wording, per WP:RELTIME, WP:DATED. For this reason, using dated wording like "currently" or "is" is inappropriate, since Wikipedia is not akin to a newspaper wherein things are described as happening "now". This is why I explicitly referenced the date of the citation. Using the "as of" format is common, but if you prefer, we can reword it as "In January 2021, it was reported that..."
I did not move mention of the short film to the Career section because that passage was an extension of the passage that mentions their relationship; it details how they met, which is commonly found in Personal life sections that detail how the subject met/dated/got engaged to/married their partner, like in the PL section of the Chris Pratt article, which mentions that his then-wife Anna Faris met him when they worked on the film Take He Home Tonight. But I agree that the film itself should be in the Career section, so there's no reason why you can't mention it there too. I didn't repeat that passage because I neglected to think of it.
As far as the other rationales you expressed in your edit summary, "Personal life" does not refer to anything for which the subject is not notable. It merely refers to things that are not part of her public life. Unless those YouTube videos were only viewable by Pugh and her close circle of friends and relatives (which the cited source for that passage does not seem to indicate), then it's part of her public life. Not her personal life. The word "Career" does not mean "notability". It generally refers to all things that are part of the subject's work. This is why, for example, her appearing in the pilot Studio City, which was not picked up for series, is in that section. Are you going to argue that Florence Pugh is notable for Studio City? Or for that matter, that all the entertainers who have Wikipedia articles are notable for the tiny, minor roles they were in before they became famous? Do you believe that Meryl Streep is notable for film roles that her Career section mentions that she didn't get, like King Kong? Is George Clooney notable for Return of the Killer Tomatoes? ;-)
Similarly, her 2020 reading of the play This Is Our Youth for the Entertainment Industry Foundation is part of her work, and not her "personal" life. The word "career" refers to a person's work (again, not the things for which a subject is notable), which means it belongs in that section (or, if there's enough material in the article on the subject's charity work, in a dedicated Charity and activism section, which is also commonly found in such articles). Nightscream (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why does RELTIME and DATED only apply to her relationship? Wouldn't your rationale mean we should also write her upcoming projects in a way that highlights the time of their announcements rather than the projects themselves? It just doesn't seem that useful to fiddle with statements of fact in that way unless they are no longer true. What would be the point of seeing that Joe Biden "is the oldest president" or that Donald Trump "is the only federal officeholder in American history to have been impeached twice" and adding "as of X" to both. How does Wikipedia not contain "things ... described as happening 'now'"? Look at Depp v. Heard.
Wouldn't repeating Braff's short film be a weight issue? The film from which Pugh received an Oscar nomination gets one mention, but a short film without its own article merits two?
While my point wasn't entirely about works' relation to the subject's notability, that definitely warrants consideration. Ben Affleck's professional gambling–personal life. Scarlett Johansson's brand ambassadorships and endorsements–public image. Cillian Murphy's music–personal life. Pugh does not sing for a living. Not only that, but we're talking about YouTube, a social media platform. Would you put Reese Witherspoon's TikTok as part of her career? It seems we may simply have different ideas about where to place different works. Having a separate section for "other works" is one thing, but lumping all discernable works into the main "career" section does not help an article's readability. KyleJoantalk 23:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Add: We may differ on the point of the "personal life" section as well, it seems. Help me understand the notion that it's only supposed to contain materials that "are not part of her public life". You mentioned Streep. Are her political views not public? Are her children's names not public? KyleJoantalk 23:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that RELTIME and DATED only applies to relationships. It applies to the wording in which the text is written in general.
I never said that time of announcements needed to be highlighted. If you read what I wrote above carefully, you'll see that I proposed two different options to properly word the passage. One is to use "As of..." Another is to use attributive wording.
It also a False Either/Or fallacy, IMO, to assume that when the text mentions when a project was undertaken or released, that it must do so "rather than" simply mention the project itself. There is no "rather than", and I don't understand where you get this idea from. Look at the passage that are already in the version of the article you favor:
"In 2016, Pugh starred in the independent drama Lady Macbeth..."
"In 2018, Pugh garnered a nomination..."
"Pugh starred in three major films in 2019..."
Do any of those passages "hightlight the time of their announcement rather than than the projects themselves"? Of course not. They simply summarize all the important information, which includes when those projects were announced/released/began, etc. Do upcoming projects have to mention when they were announced? No, not necesarily. Some editors do write their additions to articles this way, but it's not mandatory. My point is that saying, "Pugh is in a relationship with American actor and filmmaker Zach Braff" is not appropriate, because it treats the fact like a current event that will need updating if and when that fact changes. Remember, Wikipedia is not the news, and therefore "is not written in news style." Relationships should be described in terms of when they began, or when they were reported, depending on what information is available in the cited source. Here is an example of how such a section/passage should be written.
I never said that the short film merited two mentions, nor do I believe that whether one has its own article or not is relevant. I said there's no reason why you can't mention it there too. But whether you choose to should be based on the rationale for doing so, and yes, many articles may mention things twice if doing so provides explanatory clarity in two different sections. In Ben Affleck's article, for example, his work on the film Gigli mentioned twice for this very reason: It's in the Career section, and in the PL section because it's where he met Jennifer Lopez. Whether it has it's own article or not has nothing to do with it; it's mentioned the second time because it's reasonable for passages on relationships to mention where the subjects met. But if you want to mention the short film in Pugh's Career section, and in the PL section, mention "She began a relationship with Braff, with whom she previously worked", you can do that too. But there's no reason why you have to censor the name of the film in the second section. That has nothing to do with WP:WEIGHT, but is just a matter of relevance.
How I would mention Witherspoon's videos would depend on what the cited source says. But if Pugh's videos were purely a personal thing, then I'd either put them in the Early life section, as the cited source says he was 10 - 13 whens he began them, or I'd put them in the Public image section, since the coverage of them that they've garnered now that's famous goes to her public image.
In any event, begin featured in a song in 2021 is not a part of her "personal" life. Wehther the singer of the song is her brother is irrelevant to this. Ditto for her public advocacy of charitable causes, which by definition, is the opposite of "personal". Saying that it's "personal" just because it's a cause that she "personally supports" is just semantics.
"Help me understand the notion that it's only supposed to contain materials that "are not part of her public life".
Okay. The word "public" and the word "personal" are antonyms. The phrase "personal life" refers to things that are not part of one's working life or public life by definition. Do you dispute this?
To the extent that Streep has publicly voiced her political views, yes they are public, which is why they properly belong in a section dedicated to her charity/advocacy/activism. This is why I have moved such views that I have found in PL sections to sections dedicated to that public activity, just I have done just now with Streep. Thanks for alerting me to that.
The names of a subject's children are not a part of their public life, even if their names are publicly known. Meryl Streep's four children are all adults, and all four of them have their own Wikipedia articles, so there's no reason not to mention them. Did she have children as part of her professional life? No. Like any other parent, they're part of her personal life. Where is the confusion here? Nightscream (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my bluntness, but I'm not reading all of that. From the parts that I did read, the disagreement remains, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks again. KyleJoantalk 00:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vevmo

For the record I know Vevmo is reliable in that they usually are right with the information they provide. I just know that they don't pass Wikipedia's definition of WP:RS, due to it being a user-generated source. I was trying to update older articles with RS's since Vevmo usually is only available source early on before official announcements are out there. The birthday I removed as I couldn't find a RS for that anywhere, and often is the case for lesser known BLPs. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked RSN and it turns out that I had already asked there about this very thing, and they said the same thing. This was way back in 2008, so I just plain forgot about it, though I never went back and took out all the Vevmo cites that I had used up until that point. Sorry about that. (I must be getting too old.) Thanks for all your work. Nightscream (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor Tax article

It actually isn't "According to a 2010 study in the Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Europe." The conclusion vis a vis Fascist Italy comes from them (and they say it's ineffective, not that the result is mixed, as the article currently reads), but the conclusion w.r.t. the U.S.S.R. comes from Kristy Ironside, and the conclusion w.r.t. U.S. tax policy comes from Hayley Fisher. All three papers tell completely different stories. That's why the paragraph started off by saying "mixed" and doesn't reference a single paper explicitly. Fephisto (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fephisto: Okay. Do you have any ideas on how to start off the article with a more specific time reference than "more recently"? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American Dream Meadowlands

You have been reverting some of my edits on the American Dream Meadowlands article, so I want to consult you before going through with my next edit. I want to change the image in the infobox from the entrance to the parking garage to one of these two images.

Let me know which one you prefer. I think AmericanDreamExterior2 which is the first one I sent is the best option, but both beat the current image. Have a nice day. Jibreel23 (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jibreel23: Is one of those the main entrance? I think the one with the Ferris wheel looks nicer, but I've noticed that what I think is a good Infobox image is sometimes at odds with those of the rest of the community; I would suggest you begin a consensus dicussion in which you invite lots of other editors to give their opinions. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I looked at the article for Miles Morales' Earth-616 counterpart and I am pleased with the information about him becoming Ultimatum. While he does have the size-shifting abilities of Earth-1610 Giant-Man, I was wondering if you will be able to make a mentioning on how his costume resembles a hybrid of the outfits worn by Earth-1610 Giant-Man and Earth-1610 Iron Man as well as sporting a shield similar to Earth-1610 Captain America as you are the main editor for Miles Morales page. I'm just making a suggestion here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rtkat3: I'm sorry I didn't respond to this sooner. I could have sworn that I did, as I seem to remember composing a response, but as I scrolled through the most recent sections on this page, I noticed that there was no response by me here. (Did I respond on your page and it got archived?)
Anyway, if there are secondary sources for it, maybe. We should bear in mind that that's just one version of the character, so his bio is going to be in a more highly summarized "capsule" form them the one who currently lives in Earth-616 (the main subject of the article). Nightscream (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see an earlier response here or my talk page to help clear up your first comment. I know that Earth-616 Miles Morales is one character, it's his costume that evoked the traits of those Ultimates members since he appears to have a Giant-Man-like costume, the gauntlets and boots that are similar to the ones worn by Iron Man, and a shield that resembles Captain America's shield as seen in the picture on Miles Morales' page. Rtkat3 (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we need secondary sources for that, per WP:SYNTH, and we'd also have to decide if it's significant enough to mention, or just trivia. Nightscream (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might take us awhile to find one. If one can be found, it will be added to the page. Rtkat3 (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger of Western Electric articles

I have proposed a merger of the Western Electric (tube manufacturer) article into the main Western Electric article. I have posted a thread on Talk:Western Electric (tube manufacturer) to discuss the proposed merger. I invite everyone's thoughts on the idea. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Garagepunk66: I don't know if I have an opinion on a merge, but what I do think is that the article needs more secondary sources. Two of the six sources are primary sources (the company itself and a press release from it), rather than secondary sources, and one of them used to support the entire lede section. That needs to be fixed before anything else, IMO. Nightscream (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need objective viewpoints on an important matter

Hey, sorry that I didn't see your notices when you posted them to my talk page. Real life has a way of dragging me away these days.

Is there still something you wanted to talk with me about, or have things resolved? - jc37 17:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37: Yes. I'm going to compose it as three or so hypothetical questions. I'll post it on your talk page after I've done so. Thanks for responding. I'm genuinely grateful that you did. I understand about real life getting in the way. I'm in the same boat myself. ;) Nightscream (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Or you can post them here - I'll see the red on the little bell : ) - jc37 21:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37, BOZ, and Daniel Case: Okay, I'm sorry it took me so long to respond. The importance of approaching this matter the right way led me to struggle with figuring out how to compose it properly, and since I have less time now to devote to Wikipedia, it got put on the back burner.

Originally, I wanted to consult with you regarding a confict that arose in comics-related articles, but now it seems I could use your counsel regarding a separate, unrelated matter, in which an admin had threatened to block me for a practice with which I've approached uncited material in articles, one that was reached as a compromise with other editors on Jimmy Wales' discussion page back in May 2009. It invovles fact-tagging and adding the refimprove tag to articles, and then, if no one sources the material after a month, moving it to the article's talk page, in a collapsible section, complete with a diff showing precisely where that material was in the article.

This practice has resulted in other editors' being spurred to fix the uncited material in some cases, as with the Western Electric article. and I myself do this as well. Sometimes, when moving uncited mateiral to the talk page, I'll find sources for some of it, as with the ones I added to the top of the Properties section of polyvinyl chloride, or I'll do far more, as with the entire section I rewrote, complete with a dozen or so cites in phonograph record.

However, in the section just below this one, editor Kvng challenged me on this, falsely accusing me of "bullying" for requiring citations for material. I asked him how this constituted "bullying", and he has refused to respond, presumably because he knows this accusation is bogus. Then, administrator Johnuniq joined that discussion, saying I should not remove uncited material that is "probably good" or "potentially good", unless I know that it is "unverifiable". I repeatedly asked him point-blank how one can make a determination that material is "probably good", "potentially good", or "unverifiable", and he steadfastly refused to answer this question, while simultaneously claiming that I refused to address his points, even though I responded to each and every one (with the exception of one point about diffs that I missed). He has now threatened to block me if I remove uncited material again.

I tried asking Jimbo Wales about this in a discussion I recently started on his talk page here. My question to you (and feel free to voice it there), is that threat legitimate, if the practice is one I reached with other editors 13 years ago, and with which no one has ever had a problem? Would you support such a block? Nightscream (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a problem with this approach, although I suppose it depends on the specifics of each situation. BOZ (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just told you the specifics. I even linked you to some examples of articles in which I moved uncited material to the talk page. Here is is the most recent article, I believe, in which I did this, and here is where that uncited material is now, in a collapsible section, complete with an explanation, and a diff showing precisely where it was in the article (since I had to sift betwen the cited and uncited information in the article). If you agree that there is no problem with this approach, then would you support a block for this? Nightscream (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit this is a pretty good answer
I also agree with BOZ above.
These both appear to be statements about behaviour, and about trusting editors to be trying to do the right thing
The point that I think both are making, is that, removal of text (whether outright or copied to a talk page) may be useful to do, but not as a general rule, but rather on a case-by-case basis.
To use myself as an example, there are times, I've moved seemingly spurious additions to a list, to the talk page, if I thought they could be possible but unlikely; and also times when I've removed list additions outright. It really does depend on the situation.
I'm not an expert on every bit of content pn Wikipedia, and I would hazard to say no one else is, so I don't know that I would be a help analying some specific bit of content. But I'll go take a look to at least see if I can understand what's going on. And to at least see if there are any behavioural issues that may need looking into. - jc37 14:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I looked at Polyvinyl_chloride. I see that you were who tagged the sections [6].
Before removal, did you do any sort of verification on/of any of the content to see if it was good faith additions? Do you have a reason to think the content is false, spurious, or misleading information? Did you just remove the text merely because no one else helped out to add citations in that timeframe? - jc37 14:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BOZ, Jc37, and Daniel Case: The answer by Jimbo that BOZ cites did not include an answer to my question. And neither BOZ nor you have answered it either, Jc37. But let me pose it again, after I answer your question:
Regarding polyvinyl chloride, as I stated above, I added two citations to one of the uncited passages, which meant that I didn't have to move it to the talk page. Do you mean to ask me if I sourced the rest of it? No, I didn't. Did you see how much uncited info there was there? You can see in the collapsible section on that article's talk page.
Again, do you support the block threat that has been made against me? Would you support that block, and/or decline to reverse as an admin (or in the case of BOZ, if you were an admin)? Yes or no? This is what it pretty much comes down to, becuase if there is a consensus among the editing community that this is a blockable offense, then obviously, I'm not going to continue it. But if this just represents that one admin's view, then such a block, and the threat of it, is inappropriate. Can you please answer this question? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took me this time to respond ... I had meant to yesterday, but I got sidetracked running some errands and keeping cool.
In my recollection, this has been done for some time in many articles. There would seem to be community consensus that this an acceptable way to deal with material one good-faith contributor believes to be true, and that is not contentious or controversial on its face, but cannot find a reliable source for.
We have never made any policy governing things like how long such uncited material can remain in the article before being removed, perhaps because again community consensus is that it is best to leave that to the editors of an individual article. I say this not knowing if there has been any discussion; I am assuming because no one is linking to or citing any string of letters that there has not been.
I would guess that the community knows that complete removal of uncited content is not always considered the desirable way of dealing with it ... we wouldn't have the {{refimprove}} and {{unreferenced}} templates if we didn't, in addition to the ubiquitous "citation needed" which has become a meme outside the site, to the point of being referenced in a Family Guy episode (sorry, couldn't find the clip on YouTube). As noted, we prefer to encourage editors to address the issue best by finding reliable sources for material lacking it, solving the problem rather than deferring it or eliminating its source. And, honestly, this is more in keeping with our goal of sharing knowledge with everyone as it helps develop the skills of finding and communicating knowledge in whoever does so.
Whereas it doesn't take a lot of skill to just highlight a block of text, click delete and then save. And I think we know that encouraging, even rewarding this way of dealing with uncited material is also to encourage and reward certain counterproductive and antisocial personality traits. Lord knows if these times have taught us anything about how we do it wrong it is that society already does enough of that with the best of intentions.
All the same, I do note that while the language above the edit window in every article-space editing page no longer says that uncited content can be challenged and removed at any time, it still says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources." So there is at the time same time a preference for making sure all content is supported.
Like any permissible editing, the removal of uncited content to the talk page can be weaponized to the point of disruption. I can see an editor might get in the face of an opponent by repeatedly doing this no matter what reliable source might be cited.
But these things happen in the context of greater patterns of impermissible user conduct, like wikihounding, POV-pushing, or edit warring, all of which can and have led to blocks, then there is no doubt. I am thus not comfortable with the idea that removing uncited material to the talk page by itself can be considered blockable. If it is, it should in any case be done only with consensus that it constituted user misconduct.
After all, this is something we are, if not specifically encouraged to do, then definitely not discouraged from. It is rather strange to read that there are admins who think that we should leave uncited material in articles that is "probably good". No matter how uncontroversial, WP:CITE recognizes only two categories of facts in articles: cited and uncited. There is no room, for good reason, for subjective judgement in this area. Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Daniel, thank you for answering my question. And don't worry about the delay; I understand that we all have other things in our lives to juggle, and that volunteer activities/hobbies like WP have to take less priority.
I do have a question about what you said here:
"In my recollection, this has been done for some time in many articles. There would seem to be community consensus that this an acceptable way to deal with material one good-faith contributor believes to be true..."
When you say "this", what are you referring to? What has been done for some time in many articles?
If the other editor were to attempt to block me, and I contacted you, would you oppose/reverse it? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By "this", I meant the practice of removing uncited material to the talk page pending the location of sources ...

And based just on what I've read below, I don't see grounds for a block but I would want to look at all the diffs and such involved ... Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging uncited material

You've said in an edit comment, Tagging helps people such as myself identify, at a glance, uncited passages. This helps editors spot places that need cites, and also helps me spot the places that typically need to be moved to the talk page a month after I fact-tag them. Please see WP:TAGBOMB. It is not difficult to identify uncited material - the notes stand out. The articles where you're peppering the text with {{fact}} already have a {{Ref improve}} at the top.

You also indicate here that your intent is to return a month later and remove this content. I appreciate WP:V technically allows you to challenge unsourced material and then eventually remove it if no one steps up and provides a reference. However many of the statements you've tagged are not controversial (tape available in reel, cartridge and cassette; motors are used to move tape) and I would consider such a campaign WP:DISRUPT and WP:DEMOLISH. Please be patient; There are WP:NODEADLINES. ~Kvng (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: WP:V does not pertain soley to controversial material, nor does the word "controversial" or variants of it appear anywhere on the WP:V policy page. All material that does not fall under things like "France is a country in Europe" or "Christmas falls on December 25", or which constitutes non-analytical content intended to be sourced to a released narrative work (i.e.: the synopsis of a film, book, TV episode), generally requires a citation.
What you consider it is irrelevant. TAGBOMB is not a policy or guideline. DEMOLISH is an essay. As for DISRUPT, enforcing WP:V does not hinder improvement of an article. Refusing to source its content, on the other hand, most certianly DOES. The practice in question is one that was agreed upon via discussion on Jimmy Wales' talk page over a decade ago. Moving uncited material to the talk page, and including a diff showing precisely where it was in the article leaves it relatively easier for editors who favor that material to find sources for it and move it back (as opposed to outright deleting it from Wikipedia entirely), which hardly disrupts the ability to improve the article. On the contrary, a number of times, I've observed that doing this actually spurs editors to find sources, as with the Western Electric article, for example.
Waiting a month indeed constitutes patience, and many of these passages have been fact-tagged/uncited for far longer than that, in many cases for years. Nightscream (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me more specifically to this piece Jimmy Wales' talk page piece? I've been editing 14 years so should have been around for this. I've seen editors try to bully others in this way and I've not seen it work out as you describe. ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In what way? Please explain how anything I've said constitutes "bullying". Nightscream (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears your intent is to require editors to provide citations for uncontroversial material under threat of removal of the material. This is what sounds like bullying to me. Let me know if I misunderstand. Also please answer my question about Jimmy Wales' talk page. ~Kvng (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does requiring citations under threat of removal constitute bullying? Nightscream (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you're hung up on my use of bullying. I'm happy to strike that if it gets this conversation back on track. I want to know more about policy support for tagging and removing uncontroversial uncited material. ~Kvng (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer my question. Nightscream (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: You may like to see User talk:Jimbo Wales#Moving uncited material to talk pages after a month.

@Nightscream: Please only remove text if you are sure that the text is unverifiable or WP:UNDUE or a WP:BLP violation. Systematically removing probably good text would be highly disruptive. It would be useful to see some diffs of removals. Removals such as diff1 (unsourced birth date) are fine, but diff2 is dubious given what Jeff Bittiger proclaims. The latter might need fixing but my guess is that the claimed facts would be well known to people familiar with the sport and probably easily verifiable for someone with access to the right sources. If wanting to improve the article, a request at WT:WikiProject Baseball would be a good start. Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: And how exactly do think one can determine if entire sections of uncited material is "unverifiable" or "probably good"?
Why in the world would I go to Project Baseball when I have no interest in that topic? Nightscream (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not interested in a topic, and/or not interested in improving an article, you should not edit it. By all means, fix a typo or formatting problem, but anything more requires a willingness to improve the article. It would be highly disruptive for anyone to systematically remove potentially good information from articles. Disruptive editors are blocked to avoid damage to the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One more time: How does one determine if material is "potentially good"? I asked you this above, and you haven't answered it.
Fixing a typo or formatting is editing.
So is fact-tagging large amounts of uncited material, as is moving that material to the talk page after time has been given to source it. Editors do not have any say in what types of edits can be performed by other editors, regardless of their perceived expertise or interest, a sentiment reflected by WP:BECAUSEISAIDSO, WP:EXPERTISE, et al. Nightscream (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are not engaging with the points I have raised. Winning this argument is not going to help you because you will be blocked if there is evidence of systematic removal of probably good content. I have explained standard procedures above and am happy to discuss the issue. However, as an administrator, it is my responsibility to reduce damage to the encyclopedia and systematically removing probably good content is damage. Another editor has fixed your removal at Secaucus, New Jersey but relying on someone else to fix your problems is not sustainable. An example of engaging in discussion would be to have replied to my diff2 above and either provide evidence that the removal was good, or commit to not making such changes in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have engaged every point you have brought up directly. Examples:
  • You referenced material that may be "unverifiable", "probably good", or "potentially good". I responded to this by asking you point-blank how you determine if material falls under these labels. You refused to answer this three times (twice here, and once at Jimmy Wales tp). In other words, you refused to engage me in the point I attempted twice to raise.
  • You advised that I go to a particular WikiProject. I responded that I have no interest in that topic.
  • You opined that I should not edit articles except to fix typos or formatting if I'm not interested in that article's topic. I responded to this by pointing out that one editor's perception of the level or interest or expertise of another editor in a given article's topic is not a criterion for editing, and linked you to pages on Wikipedia that reflect how other editors on the project agree with me on this.
You have not explained "standard procedures". You have expressed a personal opinion, and it's wrong. At best, it does not reflect the feelings of the rest of the editing community here. Adding uncited swaths of material to articles damages Wikipedia, because it flies in the face of the very core policies designed to make the project a credible and reliable one, and to avoid problems like stealth vandalism, misinformation, unsubstantiated ideas, original research, POV-pushing, etc. As an adminsitrator, your role is essentially that of a janitor. And that role does not empower you with any authority to A. tell the rest of the editing community here how to edit, B. tell editors that they have to either do the work of editors who add uncited material to the articles, or else leave that material in articles, C. make vague, arbitrary pronouncements about material that is "potentially good", while refusing to define, when asked, how material is so judged.
I did not respond to your diffs because I missed them. Reviewing your messages, I see them now, and I'm sorry I failed to read that message more carefully. It happens. You want me to respond to it? Be happy to. First, please answer my questions first:
1. How does one determine if material is "unverifiable", "probably good", or "potentially good"?
2. Why did you repeatedly refuse to answer these questions when I first asked them?
3. Why have you claimed that I had not "engaged with the points" you raised, when by refusing to answer my questions regarding your statements, you did this very thing? Apart from the diffs, which I missed, haven't I addressed every other point you have raised? If so, then how is it accurate to say I haven't addressed your points when I addressed every one other than the two I simply failed to see, in your opinion?
I've tried to speak to you here in a direct, honest manner, and gotten far less straightforwardness in return. If you do not answer my questions, and in general, cease your overall overbearing and hypocritical tone, then don't bother answering at all. Any message you leave here will go unread. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, people can only express a personal opinion. However, I do not want to leave you in doubt so let me spell it out. I will block you if there is evidence of future systematic removal of probably good content in anything other than the significant development of a particular article. As I explained above, it is fine to work on one topic and make improvements, and that may involve what WP:V says about removing material that needs a source but does not have one. However, an edit such as diff2 is disruptive given that the smallest amount of checking would have involved visiting Jeff Bittiger and confirming what it says. The text you removed is almost certainly correct and appropriate for the article, and the only reason to remove it is that you are not interested in the topic and believe you are entitled to remove text regardless of whether it is correct and/or appropriate. That will not occur for much longer. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartly agree with what Kvng and Johnuniq have written. You are bulk deleting huge amounts of probably good contents from articles like Phonograph record or Radio (and many others) which have been collected and contributed by editors over years. You are basically destroying the work of other editors and leaving the articles in a far lesser state than before. You are thereby working against the goals of the project. The goal of this project is not to have sources, but to have encyclopedic contents. Encyclopedic contents can exist without sources (mind that all the classical encyclopedias did not list their sources). It is good that we take a somewhat more academic approach and try to source as much as is reasonably possible - that's important because not only reknown experts in their corresponding fields can edit the encyclopedia, but anyone, even anonymously (like you) - and unfortunately not everyone can be trusted -, but on the other hand no amount of experts could have brought together the amount of reasonably good contents we already have. Everything that is likely to be challenged eventually should get a source, but challenging stuff without reason as you do (just because you think you can) is disruptive and uncollegial behaviour that has no place in this project, because it interrupts the ever ongoing improvement process and distracts and discourages editors from continuing to work on articles (or even for new editors to join the project). The encyclopedia cannot be written by a single person. Some people are knowledgeable about a topic, some are good in writing prose, but they are not always also the people who have access to the best sources. This makes it necessary for editors to collaborate over distance and over time and most often without ever knowing or even talking to each other. While an accurate and sourced statement is the ideal, an accurate but unsourced statement is still much better than no statement at all. Our project has no deadline, and it is perfectly fine if someone finds and adds a good source a decade after an accurate statement was added by someone else. But if you came around and deleted the contents in the meantime, neither the contents nor the source may ever be part of the encyclopedia. Your editing behaviour is thereby causing losses to the project, not a gain.
You are attempting to force other editors to start almost from scratch. That might be a reasonable approach if some contents would actually be trash, but not when it has already achieved some level of quality and was stable for longer periods of time without other editors complaining about it. What makes you think you have a better judgement in regard to the article contents than others (and even in the face of many complaints regarding your editing behaviour)? You are trying to make a point that there should be more sources (with which nobody disagrees) by being WP:POINTY. Your editing is disruptive. No good.
The fact that you are aggressive towards your fellow editors, and even for no reason (like you were, for example, here: [7] and [8]), is making things worse.
Stop it and restore the bulkloads of contents you deleted from articles without consensus.
This might also be relevant:
* Talk:Phonograph_record#Uncited_material_in_need_of_citations
* Talk:Radio#Uncited_material_in_need_of_citations
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthiaspaul: There is indeed consensus. Policy reflects the community consensus (as it states here), and that consensus is that adding uncited material to articles is strictly prohibited. One of your fellow policy violators attempted to argue that my talk page moves as "disruptive", and he was explicitly informed that they are "no violation". Please stop. If you wish to retain that material, then work to cite it. Nightscream (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removing basic descriptive and clearly factual content? Not every sentence needs a reference. This is patently absurd. Centerone (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, not every sentence needs one, per WP:REPCITE. But in terms of which information does, most of it does. "France is a country in Europe" does not need one. Nor does the synopsis of a released book or film need one. In general, however, most information on Wikipedia needs to be be supported by a citation of reliable source, so that the reader knows where it came from, per WP:V, et al. Nightscream (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Thompson

Thank you for reviewing my request at Maggie Thompson and making changes to the article. However, while you removed the information about her being a librarian from the body of the article, you missed the place where it was causing an actual problem -- the introductory sentence. Might you review that again and remove the "former librarian" descriptor, if you deem appropriate? Thank you, Nat Gertler (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that. Done. Nightscream (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks! --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NatGertler: Any time. Nightscream (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the title of a discussion at Talk:LP record

  • By changing "fictitious" to "dubious", you made it unclear to readers why I typed "fictitious" and you've made me the "uncivil" one (no ssuch word as "incivil").
  • If you find "fictitious" offensive or uncivil, you must be pretty thin-skinned.
  • If you have an opinion or info (such as a reliable source for the logo) to contribute, why don't you post something? JustinTime55 (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JustinTime55: User:WA1TF0R, who started the discussion, explains what the problem is with the logo in the first message in that discussion, so it is not unclear. If he felt it was fictitious, then he could have made that case more explicitly in that message, but instead, he correctly focuses on issues of sourcing, and offered no evidence that the logo was fictional.
Modifying the heading for this reason, therefore, was reasonable, and not uncommon in talk page discussions. After 24,000 edits, you should know this.
I do not have an opinion or information on the provenance of the logo. My interest was solely in issues of neutral wording and civility. Nightscream (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse James Keitel

I have requested a third opinion over this matter. U-Mos (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. Try not to lob any false accusations at whichever editor chooses to participate, as you did with me, m'kay? Nightscream (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Barraud: Thank You!

Thanks for having a look at my overhaul of the Francis Barraud page and making some edits. I read your note on the article's talk page about "Uncited material in need of citations" and made sure I had a lot of sources before I edited the page! QueenPuck (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You. Are. Awesome.
Totally deserving of the royal title you have bestowed upon yourself. ;-)
If only there were more editors like you. Nightscream (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Sources: False accusations of edit warring, et al.

1. Complaint of talk page moves at Village Pump (Result: Not proper venue)

Which is weird. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really weird. Johnuniq is continuing his anti-WP:V vendetta, which I see that you are joining in as one of his enablers by falsely claiming that my upholding that core policy makes me the "problematic" editor here. Thanks for the heads-up. Nightscream (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. First false accusation of edit warring at ANI (Result: No violation; Reporting editor Kvng admonished not to tell other admins to leave discussion)

I have reported this. ~Kvng (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3. False WP:DE/WP:POINTY accusation at ANI (Result: Restoring unsourced content deemed counter to policy by multiple people, and those who did so asked to stop by an admin)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result above is derived from this statement by administrator User:NinjaRobotPirate, who closed the discussion. Nightscream (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is now archived. Nightscream (talk) 09:22, September 12, 2022 (UTC)

4. False accusation of edit warring/3RR (Result: No violation)

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change in date format

I just happened to notice this edit on the Phonograph record page where you changed from DMY to MDY dates and I was wondering what your reasoning was for making the change? Gusfriend (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gusfriend: Nightscream was correct to do so as all the dates in the article are in mdy format. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I honestly don't remember at this point why I changed that. If the consensus of editors who edit that article agree this was wrong, then I have no objection to changing it back. Nightscream (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seemed to be a bit of going back and forth between the different date styles and I was trying to figure out what the definitive style should be. Having said that I think that it has settled to an inherent consensus so I am not sure if anything needs to be done. Gusfriend (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Sources: ANI: use of the word "absolute"

"the closest thing to an absolute", e.g. not an absolute but close to it, or nearly without exception. I wouldn't use absolute to mean anything over than... well absolute. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. :-) Nightscream (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you most recent post is quite reasonable, I won't reply there as the comment was to Tcr25 (and that thread really doesn't need to get any longer). As to point 3. personally I would try to discuss the issue, and only remove the content again if it goes nowhere and noone tries to add any referencing. You're right on the content issue, but so are others that there is no deadline. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that there is no deadline in general, but once an editor who discovers an article like that, and attempts to alert others, it's not unreasonable to do a talk page move after some length of time, even if some may feel that time is arbitrary, like a month, though that can be negotiated. Nightscream (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree, my point was how to deal with someone who reverts that talk page move. Reverting them back without any discussion, even if your in the right, only creates tension. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Sources: Understanding each other's point of view

I'm still interested in understanding how you see your deletion/moves of uncited uncontroversial material from articles as improvements to the article or the encyclopedia. I know you have claimed to have answered this and I tried to summarize as your vision is that deleting stalled work-in-progress leaves us with a high-quality encyclopedia to which you objected to without elaborating.

I'm generally trying to understand who you (and the others with similar position – ToBeFree, Black Kite, Daniel Case, Levivich, Trey Maturin, nableezy) expect to come around and restore with citations and how an article with uncited material that's been reviewed by experts is worse than an article with holes blown in it. ~Kvng (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are truly a remarkable individual, Kvng.
You routinely chicken out of answering my direct questions about your statements, but then expect me to answer yours.
And on top of this, you insist that I respond to your Straw Man arguments, even after I've pointed out that they are Straw Man arguments. Repeatedly.
I don't belive you have the ability to "understand" how I see things, because I really don't think you want to. You are not honest. You are intentionally deceitful. You routinely exhibit hypocrisy. You are willfully manipulative in the way you fabricate arbitrary goal posts and then move those goal posts in order to achieve your agenda. There is nothing in the way you comport yourself that suggests that you harbor a genuine sense of intellectual curiosity nor open-mindness about points of view you disagree withat. And now, even after your repeated attempts to convince others that entire articles' worth of uncited info/original research is what policy calls for have gone the way of the Hindenburg, you continue to whine, just as your allies have recently done repeatedly ([9], [10]).
And that is your biggest problem. Not me.
But prove me wrong. Show some intellectual honesty in answering my questions. Every single one. Honestly. Straightforwardly. Without bullshit. Without retreating. Show me that you have the ability to have a civil disagreement with someone typified by a genuine attempt to understand, rather than agenda-and-emotion-driven vitriol.
Otherwise, I'm not going to bother with this any further. Nightscream (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kvng: There is a line where actions on here cross from badgering to harassment. Kvng, you're already badgering Nightscream. You're walking that line where it becomes harassment. Please stop. — Trey Maturin has spoken 20:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trey, thank you. However, I don't have a problem with continued discussion of the topic, so long as it's genuinely sincere discussion, characterized by intellectual honesty, internal consistency, and basic decency, which is what I stated above. If Kvng wishes to have a discussion on that basis, without the problematic behaviors that typified his conduct and that of the others during the recent tp discussions, I'd have no problem with it. Nightscream (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've linked to a couple diffs you claim to be my whines but these are posts by two other editors. Do you have me confused with someone else? I'm getting the message that you want me to answer your questions before answering mine. OK. You've referred to many unanswered questions but The only question I see in what you've written above is a question about whether I will answer questions. I will. ~Kvng (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kvng, thanks for the ping. Has something new happened since the discussion, for example further removal of material you consider to be verifiable but which lacked citations of reliable sources? I'd need a link to the articles we're talking about. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not claim them to be yours.
I explicitly said they were those of your allies.
Thanks for once again illustrating that a post of mine doesn't have to be the equivalent of two pages of a Word document for it to be too long for you to read it carefully, and for illustrating my broader point above.
Take care of yourself, Kvng. Nightscream (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the misreading. Why am I responsible for what others have posted? I'm sorry you interpret my posts here as whining, that is not my intention. If you don't want to continue corresponding, I'll respect that.
If anyone else is interested in helping me please let me know.
No, nothing new has happened. The way this went down surprised me and I want to see if it is possible to better align my editing with the goals of the community. ~Kvng (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Uncited material that has been reviewed by experts" has never been part of the Wikipedia brand (It sounds more like what Nupedia or Citizendium were supposed to be; neither of them ever were for a good reason). In fact, that statement betrays the kind of arrogance that has left the legacy mass media and other institutional sources of information so distrusted, disdained and despised that people are actually willing to believe the sources someone sent them a link to on Facebook telling them that drinking fish tank cleaner will prevent COVID (and see Murder of Kitty Genovese for one example (of many) of how that came about over the years). If the uncited material is OK with experts, those experts or people working for them should be falling all over themselves to find sources that themselves should not be hard to find. Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, IME that's not how it actually works. This is evidenced by the fact that these uncontroversial statements have remained unsourced for years. Experts, such as myself, don't enjoy spending time researching things they already know. I'm not sure the type of editor you describe actually exists. I enjoy making incremental improvements to articles and I WP:BRD changes that don't appear to be improvements and that's how I met Nightscream. I'm confident articles are better after I've worked on them but I know they're not perfect. If the project has matured to the point that we're requiring perfection WP:NOW, I probably won't be able to help any longer. ~Kvng (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Respectfully, IME that's not how it actually works."
That is precisely how it works. What does it take to get it through to you, Wikipedia editors are not permitted to add/information on the basis of their personal knowledge, that Wikipedia refers to to this as original research, and that this is explicitly spelled out at WP:PRIMARY, where it says:
Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.
I repeatedly tried telling you this in our previous tp discussions, and you and the others repeatedly refused to address this, even if to falsify it. The only thing you did do, when I referenced policy, was to make the ridiculous, made-up claim that "consensus is more important than policy", and when I pointed out to you that policy reflects consesus, as it explicitly states here, you refused to respond to this. If this is not because you knew that I had showed how your reliance on personal knowedge, and couldn't bring yourself to admit it, then why wouldn't you respond? Are you going to respond to it now, or just evade this yet again?
Think about this: How is the casual reader — or the rest of the editing community, for that matter — supposed to be able to vet material on the basis of the self-stated expertise of editors? When one arrives at an article, is there any way to know, at a glance, which passage was added by which editor, without doing a deep dive into the article's edit history? Do you really think that is what the reader is intended to do by the editing community? And what if a reader did do this, and found the author of a piece of information? How is that reader supposed to vet the credentials of the editor? Are they supposed to take them at their word, because that editor just says they're an expert on their talk page? You can't possiblythink that this is how Wikipedia was intended to operate, do you? Or do you?
"This is evidenced by the fact that these uncontroversial statements have remained unsourced for years."
No, it isn't. You are taking a given (the long-term presence of uncited info in an article), and assuming the conclusion that you jolly-well feel like, without considering other possible explanations, much less explaining how you have excluded those other possibilities as an equally likely or more more likely possibility.
Wikipedia is vast. The English language version alone is 6.5 million articles, which cannot be effectively policed in such a way that all policy violations can be spotted or addressed in a timely manner by the limited number of editors on it. This means that much may fall through the cracks. It may also mean that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and the manner in which they have been enforced, have evolved over the decades, which I believe someone may have mentioned in the recent DE/POINTY discussion. To conclude that long-term presence in an article is "evidence" of the approval of the editing community is at best, an assumption, one that does not consider the possibility that it may be in an article because other editors simply missed it, or haven't had the time to address it.
Daniel rather astutely debunked this notion to you on the ANI board, when he stated:
Imagine that some people have a house, or an outbuilding they rent out, that they've never bothered to build a roof on. People live in the uncovered space and sometimes get wet or cold. This goes on for years and then someone decides to build a roof and put it on the outbuilding ... only for the owners to remove it almost immediately. This repeats a few times until someone calls the local building inspector and the police, who point out that dwellings are required to have roofs. The owners object that since no one ever had a complaint about this until recently, it wasn't a problem and thus it shouldn't be, and this jerk should be arrested for acting like it is. Do you see now how absurd this looks from the outside?
Instead of responding to this to explain why the underlying logic or reasoning of Daniel's statement was wrong, you went silent, choosing instead to try to tell him that he should not participate in that discussion, a ridiculous reply that prompted Acroterion, who closed the discussion, to admonish you not to do that. At no point did you explain why Daniel was wrong. Why is this?
Can you explain why Daniel's reasoning (and mine) are wrong? Yes or no?
Consensus is an explicit position that is actively and explicitly stated by the community. It is not a default position inferred or assumed from silence or neglect.
"Experts, such as myself, don't enjoy spending time researching things they already know."
This perhaps more than any other comment by you, betrays the narcissistic mentality that seems to inform your editing habits.
You aren't researching things for yourself. You're researching them because you're contributing to an encyclopedia for others to use, which is made possible by the inclusion of citations by the volunteers who edit the project instead of the credentials of in-house employees. The citations are how the reader knows where that information came from. They cannot know this if you write information based on what you claim to be an expert in.
"If the project has matured to the point that we're requiring perfection..."
It doesn't. It requires citations.
If you'd like to see articles that actually are "evidence" of this, then I recommend you read a Featured Article. Since the articles on which this conflict arose are technology-related ones, I went to that section of the Featured Article list, and clicked on three articles at random: Apollo 4, Project Rover, and Distributed-element circuit. Guess what I found, Kvng? I found that every single paragraph after the lede section had a citation at the end of it (in addition to the ones within the paragraph). Do you think that's a coincidence? Or do you think that someone went around, added citations to those articles that in your view, were completely unnecessary? None of that information, after all, appears to be "contentious" or "controversial", which are among the fictional goalposts and your and your allies like to invoke for uncited info. So why are those FA like that, in your view? I'll tell you why: It's because that is the ideal article Wikipedia strives for, and not your mythical "perfection", much less your cynical, lazy model of an article with entire swaths of original research written by people are essentially writing articles for themselves instead of other people unacquainted with you, who have no way of vetting your expertise.
Again, if you can explain why the above reasoning and evidence is wrong (Does WP:NOR, for example not say that personal knowledge is not permitted? Does the page on Policies and Guidelines not say that they reflect consensus? Does this not falsify you claim that one is more important than the other?), then do so. Otherwise, you're just saying the same thing over and over again, and I don't know what you think that would accomplish. Nightscream (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start by responding to Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material and Consensus is more important than policy. I will have a look at the rest of this later when I have more time.
At this stage, I do not add unsourced material. That was more common earlier in the project. I do still see editors do it. If I can verify it with my own knowledge, I leave it. If it is dubious I either research it and delete it, cite/fix it or tag it with {{cn}} and often a |reason=. The question your editing pattern raises is what should we do with then do with existing material of this nature. My solution is to systematically review it. In reviewing, I treat existing material just like a new contribution as described above. IMO, this is best done in place in the article to avoid branching issues and where the work in progress is clearly visible and collaboration can occur. Deleting it from article and trying to work on it on the talk page, in addition to being cumbersome, tends to create disengagement and WP:FOC issues.
What I meant when I said consensus is more important than policy is that policy is created by consensus. If we encounter a situation where someone claims policy says one thing and a consensus of involved editors says another, we should question whether the policy is being interpreted correctly, we should consider changing policy, maybe we just have a rogue local consensus of editors that are out of step with the community and they need to be brought into line or leave the project or maybe the community has become polarized and a universal consensus is now out of reach. That's the crux of what I'm trying to sort through here. ~Kvng (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have a little more time now and can address How is the casual reader — or the rest of the editing community, for that matter — supposed to be able to vet material on the basis of the self-stated expertise of editors?
I have no expectation that this can or should occur. My position is that most articles are not finished. Our sourcing goals are nominally fulfilled for WP:GA and above. The rest still need work.
In the meantime what a free online encyclopedia anyone can edit can offer is material that has had a very large number of eyes on it and each pair of eyes is able to make comments and corrections. This tends to ferret out errors over time. That's not how WP:OR policy says new material should be created but such material does exist and it is not controversial, is reasonably accurate and provides a scaffold for editors working toward GA status. ~Kvng (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Next is uncontroversial statements ... unsourced for years. The article that has received the most discussion, Radio has about 0.5 million pageviews per year, is, on average, edited every day or so, and has, over it's 20 year lifespan, received over 6000 edits by about 3000 editors. There is robust and generally productive discussion and explicit evidence of comprehensive reviews by editors in the talk page archives. I just don't see Daniel's story holding up over that long with so many visitors and competent editors involved. I acknowledge that there is no proof here. The word I used was evidenced. I think the evidence supports my assertion that the uncited material is well reviewed and that editors, for whatever reasons, have been uninterested in doing the work of adding the citations you have recently demanded. You are welcome use this same evidence to try and support your position. What do you make of it? It may well be that you are the first to come through and try to strictly enforce (your interpretation of) policy here but my point is that a very large number of editors and readers do not see the same problems with this article that you do. ~Kvng (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following comment was moved to the bottom of this thread by Nightscream, who prefers his messaes not be broken up by others inserted in between them. The comment by Kvng that Daniel Case is responding to here was quoted above it for contextual understanding.
"Experts, such as myself, don't enjoy spending time researching things they already know."
@Kvng: Forgive me for interjecting my own comment here, but this remark of yours I find equally disturbing and I have been mulling my own response to it for a few days.

I not only give a big +1 to Nightscream's response, I would again point you to the broader world, where a few years ago Michael Gove, then a high-ranking member of the British cabinet, famously said in response to being told that there was no expert opinion supporting his contention that Britain would be better off outside the EU that "the people of this country have had enough of experts". Yes, if you read the article, there's a bit of qualification on that quote since a journalist interrupted him before he got out the whole sentence, but I think the reason the truncated version has had such a long life is as much because there was a lot of agreement with it as because it confirmed Remainers' belief that despite Gove's Oxford degree he was a philistine who built his political base on appeals to ignorance.

And the former aspect of that is ably sustained by your admission above that you can't be bothered to look up the basic facts all experts know and, therefore, the article doesn't need them. I knew there was such contempt abroad for experts, and on an intellectual level I understood why but I never saw this or felt this on a personal, emotional level until reading this.

If, as is said to the point of hammy cliché, "knowledge is power", then we are remiss in not doing the necessary algebraic substitution with some other overused-but-no-less-true aphorisms. Most pertinent in the present context would be "with great knowledge comes great responsibility", and I think that understanding that to mean that those with that great knowledge are nevertheless not relieved of the duty of explaining to the layperson where they might acquaint themselves with the basics of the knowledge expounded upon, even though that might be understood in expert discourse.

Indeed, as the linked article shows by illustration, we are not unaware of this principle as it applies to what we have chosen to do here. I would say, in fact, that Wikipedia as a project has in fact if it has accomplished anything made the connection between knowledge and power too explicit to deny, as those of us who have made it a dedication and commitment to create and improve content here in so many ways cannot, at this point, be unaware of how much credibility we have with the global online public and therefore the power of shaping how the world sees itself. (Of course, those of us who had to read a lot of Foucault in graduate school already knew this, but as I said before it's one thing to know something by learning it and another thing to know something by living or being it). Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to have others involved in this discussion. Thanks for you thoughts.
I am working my way down Nightscream's post and I haven't responded to Experts, such as myself, don't enjoy spending time researching things they already know yet. I should get to this next and will try to address your point in that too. I don't have enough time right now. Does anyone have any comments on what I have responded to? ~Kvng (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Experts, such as myself, don't enjoy spending time researching things they already know. I'll stand my this statement for myself. I only have circumstantial evidence (see uncontroversial statements...) that it applies to others. I believe WP:VOLUNTEER grants me the right to do the work I am interested in and pass over other chores. This is a crowdsourced project and monitoring my watchlist, I frequently see others happy to pick up slack I've left.
As far as Daniel's points are concerned, this really doesn't have much to do with me being an expert. I don't use my expertise to write articles; I use my expertise to identify areas that are potentially incorrect or incomplete (see Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience). I'm not always right about these things and my best wiki experiences are when I'm wrong and learn something new through my own curiosity-induced research or interaction with other editors or reading other editors' contributions. I'm not sure why Daniel is having such a visceral reaction to my neglect of his priorities/responsibilities for article improvement but I don't think it is appropriate to ascribe this sort of behavior to experts in general, it's just how I personally choose to approach my Wikipedia hobby. I suggest you look at the positives here. I know that we disagree about whether deleting uncontroversial uncited material is positive but I invite you to assess my other contributions. I may not be doing the work that you consider urgent but I hope we can agree that most of my contributions are improving the encyclopedia. ~Kvng (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Finally If the project has matured to the point that we're requiring perfection... Much of this I've already touched on in my How is the casual reader... response above. I think we can generally agree on WP:FA as a goal. The question and disagreement is about how and when are we going to get there? It is my impression that the WP:GA and WP:FA bars are cleared by heroic editors who enjoy this sort of accomplishment. My hat is off to them. I believe, however, that this level of editor talent is in short supply especially in technical subject areas - WP:COMP has 7 FA and 178 GA out of 58,109 articles assigned to the project.
So what do we do with all these B, C, start and stub level articles? WP:TNT aside, I hope we agree that there is no policy grounds for deleting articles just because they don't meet a quality threshold. So, should we be deleting the pieces of these articles that don't meet a quality threshold?
What is the route you envision for a start class article to reach WP:FA? My vision involves small incremental improvements over a long period with a hero dropping in at the end for the final push. I also accept that realistically there's no chance we'll achieve widespread perfection and we have to be comfortable publishing a pretty good encyclopedia. ~Kvng (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream: I hope and assume all this has satisfied your complaint that I have not answered any of your questions about my position. I started this discussion with a request for clarification about your position. I hope you are able to address my request. ~Kvng (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm experiencing Warnock's dilemma. Anyone care to explain what's going on. ~Kvng (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New DCAU Article Feedback

Hello Nightscream, the copy editor User:AngusWOOF is reviewing a draft of a new DCAU article I am trying to have published. He has directed me to seek the feedback of people like you who have edited the DCAU page in the past to provide feedback as to whether or not you believe the content I included is something Wikipedia readers interested in the DCAU would find value in. Mainly the copy editing team would like feedback on the table depicting chronological narrative viewing order. I would appreciate it if you can review my inquiry and the draft article and inform if you think the content is of value to those who may be reading about or wanting to watch the DCAU. This will help get the copy editing team the feedback they need to proceed with either an approve or decline decision. Thanks for your feedback.

JGott85

Inquiry to fellow DC Fans based on Copy Editors Feedback:

Talk:DC Animated Universe#Seeking Feedback & Support for New Article dedicated to topic of DCAU Continuity and Canon

Draft Article attempting to be published

Draft:DC Animated Universe (DCAU) Media Continuity, Canonicity, and Viewing Order JGott85 (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:86.181.0.154

Hi, you have posted to User talk:86.181.0.154 - are you still watching it? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's still on my watchlist, but only because I forgot to take it off of it until just now. If you're having a problem with him, as with the recent edit summary I recommend going to an admin like User:Daniel Case or User:NinjaRobotPirate, since they were both participants in a protracted dispute in which 86.181.0.154 was one of the editors involved. Nightscream (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refusals and runouts

Hi, an article that already has a global "citation needed" tag doesn't need additional cn tags after every sentence, see WP:TAGBOMBING --FMSky (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you referring to?
And btw, WP:TAGBOMBING is an essay. It's not a policy nor a guideline. Nightscream (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed it in Refusals and runouts. It's just mainly redundant and makes the article look terrible with dozens of tags --FMSky (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it is not redundant. I find that they make it easier to discern, at a glance, which passages/sections are missing citations. I don't know what you mean by the word "global" here, but that banner was placed there back in February, and has resulted in zero citations being added to it. Prior to that, it was an unreferenced tag/banner, which had been there since September 2020. It was changed after one citation was added to the article. So obviously, the banner alone is not spurring the community to do what it needs to do to bring it in line with WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:CS, et al. If it the article "looks terrible", this way, then it's the fault of the people who created it with no citations. If you don't like this, then fix it by adding the cites, not removing the tags. Nightscream (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"WABC News" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect WABC News and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 17#WABC News until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Palisades Center

I thought it was easier to revert back to your clean version, but if you think this version is better, feel free to revert me. We're both restoring one of your edits. And thanks for the cleanup. Star Mississippi 20:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: No prob. Some of the information added by Fusehall, sock or no, was relevant, and supported by the citations they included, which is why I didn't do a blanket revert. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Thanks for the additional clean up. Have a great evening. Star Mississippi 02:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nightscream&oldid=1116931701"