Open main menu

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. :-)

Pffffft.gif

Contents

Happy New Year!Edit

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

@Rtkat3: Thanks. Happy New Year to you too. :)

Spider-Man templatesEdit

Hello, I really need to talk to you about something. I recently added some Templates on Miles Morales article (in which you might be aware of that), on Venom (Marvel Comics character), but User:Pinky Rhino had reverted them for no clear reason, he (or she) also added the template { { Black Cat } } on the Carnage (comics) and I as comic book reader I found really odd. When I tried to talk to him, he just deletet the words I sad on his talk page. I really need to know your opinion on this case, who is right me or him? Thanks a lot.

P.S.: I kinda used the gif on your page for mine, I hope it doesn't bother. Thanks a lot you really helped of how Wikipedia really works. Penguin7812 (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Penguin7812: I don't do a lot of editing on templates, so I'm not certain what the guidelines are concerning them. Could it be that Venom is already listed in the Spider-Man Villains template, and there is some guideline or consensus that considers using both templates to be redundant? I would recommend asking editors who work on those templates. Try looking through the edit histories of those templates, and asking those who edit them frequently.
However, one way in which you are right is that editors are supposed to communicate with each other when they disagree. While the message that Pinky Rhino removed without responding was this one, it looks like that one pertained to a different matter, and not the matter of the templates. Not sure why he removed it without responding, but as far as your message about the templates, you only placed it on his tp less than five hours ago, so give him a day or so to respond. If he doesn't, then revert it, and I'll support the reversion.
As for the .gif, well, how I can be offended? I've heard that imitation, after all, is the sincerest form of flattery. (So is the lovely compliment you just paid me.) At least, I hope what the editor from whose page I copied from thinks if he finds out I did the same thing! Nightscream (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that a great advice, thank you so much, I really needed it. You may not know, but these articles on these Spider-Man characters are really important to me. I only want expand their comic book history as much as possible, I wouldn't add random things in these articles, maybe I may became you one day. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. Penguin7812 (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Penguin7812: No prob. Remember: BE BOLD!. And Excelsior! Nightscream (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Star Trek: Discovery (season 2)Edit

Just wondering if there's a reason as to the mass reverts when it comes to your edits. Yesterday, you reverted, stating "Restoring citation removed by Alex 21, which caused two orphaned ref name tags" (despite only being one), but then you also reverted a number of your own edits at the same time (e.g. "on the heels" "international streaming", etc.). This continued today, when you edited the "spacing", but restored the version of updating the episode count and table which I had fixed in the edit directly preceding yours. -- /Alex/21 00:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Sorry, it was one tag, but two citations -- that is, two citations of that one source. That was sloppy wording on my part, which I don't think is typical of my work.
As for reverting my own edit, I sorta saw that when I saw that you reverted that revert yesterday, which mystified me. I have no idea how that happened. Obviously, it was something inadvertent that I didn't even realize I did until I saw you reverted it. Thanks, btw, for doing that. Nightscream (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WizardWorldLogo.pngEdit

 

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of G-FanEdit

 

The article G-Fan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lack of reliable sources to sustain notability on Wikipedia.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GamerPro64 05:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of G-Fan for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article G-Fan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-Fan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GamerPro64 00:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roxann Dawson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matlock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet on comics articlesEdit

Hello, I'm so sorry for disturbing you. I need your help, because there is this new editor called User:Sterling Skywalker, who had edited on Carnage (comics). And I think that he actually a sockpuppet of User:Pinky Rhino (aka. User:Atomic Meltdown). His edits are very similar to those done by Pinky Rhino, since he usually edited the partners section of the character's article; his joining to Wikipedia matches the block done to Pinky Rhino and when I looked at the Sockpuppet investigation on Atomic Meltdown, he had used a name reference to Star Wars. I know that this a serious assumption, but I really have my doubts. If I am wrong than I will not revert any edits done by Sterling Skywalker anymore. I really need your opinion on this, thank you. Penguin7812 (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Penguin7812: I would recommend contacting an administrator, perhaps one who does work on comics-related articles. Perhaps you could look for one either in that article's edit history, or at WikiProject Comics. You could also ask for help at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Nightscream (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I did directly ask @Sterling Skywalker: about this and he didn't respond. I'm gonna to discuss this someone who is dealing with this investigation. Thank you again and have a good day (or night). Penguin7812 (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FlamingArrow.jpgEdit

 

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RoughTrails.jpgEdit

 

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:StarTrekChallenger.jpgEdit

 

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ThinAir.jpgEdit

 

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The Infinity Gauntlet at FACEdit

Hey Nightscream,

My nomination for The Infinity Gauntlet has stalled, and it's at risk of being archived. If you have time, would you mind to add some comments Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Infinity Gauntlet/archive2 and lend your support if you think it's FA quality?

Thanks, Argento Surfer (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Lucio Fernandez for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lucio Fernandez is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucio Fernandez until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Adam Hughes articleEdit

I hope you realize:

The disputed section is actually plagiarized from the "cited" article (as in it's not placed in quotations properly). Moreover, even though the mistake was Hughes', the term "stola" is Latin, NOT Greek. As it stands, the article is egregiously erroneous and has nothing to do with my personal opinion about clothing or fashion.

With regards to statues, I can link every individual statue's product page from PreviewsWorld if you'd like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@70.112.229.80:
The passage in question is not plagiarized, nor does it require quotation marks, since both plagiarism and direct quotes require that the material in question be A. written verbatim, word-for-word, which the passage in question isn't, as it is properly paraphrased, and B. plagiarism additionally requires that material be presented as original work by the author, without attribution to the original source. The passage does not do this either, since the source is explicitly attributed in the form of the very inline citation that you yourself mention. Maybe if you're going to make accusations of "plagiarism", it might benefit you if you made a point of first learning what such terms actually mean.
As for statues not mentioned in the article, Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. Nightscream (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
We can disagree on the nature of how the article was used, but again, the word stola is Latin, NOT Greek. That renders such a description wrong, even if the person who made the mistake was Adam Hughes himself.
PreviewsWorld is actually a third party source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@70.112.229.80:
Really? We can "disagree" on what plagiarism is? Okay. Tell me what is required for plagiarism, and show me how the Wikipedia article (and of course I, since I wrote that passage), committed it.
I'll address your other concerns afterward, if you wish.
Also, editors who intend to edit here on an ongoing basis (that is, for more than a one-off edit) are expected to create a username account. It makes it easier to communicate on a one-on-one basis. Lastly, please remember to sign your talk page messages. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, which also automatically time stamps them. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
For the purposes of published text -- especially if we're repeating someone else's error -- what was used would constitute plagiarism when not placed in quotes. The way you describe "paraphrasing" is acceptable only in casual conversations for clarity in communication.70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@70.112.229.80: You're not answering my question. I'm asking you what is plagiarism -- that is, what is required for something to qualify as it? By saying "what was used" in the article constitutes, you're just repeating your original claim, which is a circular argument. I'll ask you again: What is plagiarism? What are the criteria by which something is determined to be plagiarism? Nightscream (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Extensive re-use of previously-published text. This is true even if there is a "citation" appended to a spew salad paragraph. I would characterize almost that whole section about the "Women of the DC Universe" drawing as plagiarism. Furthermore, you are parroting the article writer's opinions on several issues, including the picture's "iconic" status. "Iconic" according to whom? The guy who wrote that article is not a widely-acknowledge expert on art.70.112.229.80 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@70.112.229.80: But what, as you understand, constitutes "extensive" re-use?
Given that the entire article 's information is derived from previous published sources — as is every policy-compliant Wikipedia article, all material on Wikipedia is required to be derived from previously published sources — why is that one paragraph plagiarism, but not any other paragraph in the article? Why is the first paragraph in the 2000s section, the one about Sia-Lan Wezz, not plagiarism? Or what about the paragraph on his 2016 Betty & Veronica miniseries? Why is that not paragraph? What makes that one paragraph's use of previously published text "extensive", but not every other properly composed paragraph on Wikipedia, including any one of its featured articles? Please explain what, as you understand it, are the criteria for "extensiveness".
And while you're at it, please explain why quotation marks are needed around the passage in question, given that no portion of it is a direct quote. When exactly, as you understand it, do quotation marks need to be used? Nightscream (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The way that you basically took globs of "info" (some of which was erroneous as in the "Greek stola" instance) requires almost each sentence to be "referenced". Since some of that "info" is actually the article writer's opinion, the paragraph about that picture really should be condensed to two or three sentences. If people are interested in reading about that picture, they can click on the link. 70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@70.112.229.80: What you're saying has nothing to do with plagiarism.
Plagiarism, by definition, means taking credit for another's work, usually by presenting others' work without attribution, as if it were one's own work. Period. That's it. (Sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6])
In journalism, academia, and other areas where it is a relevant phenomena, this usually means text or other material that is often (though not always) presented verbatim, word-for-word, that is not accompanied by a visible credit to the original author.
Since the salient criterion is taking credit for another's work by presenting it was one's own through the deliberate omission of credit to the original source, your claim is pretty much falsified, simply virtue of the citation.
As for quotation marks, those are used for.......direct quotes'. Hence the word. If material needed quotation marks merely because it was derived from other sources, then the entirely of the article, and every other Wikipedia article, would need to have quotes around---what, every sentence? Every paragraph? I'm not sure what you were calling for, and since you didn't respond to my last question about this claim of yours, I'm going to guess that you realized how ridiculous it was, and have chosen to abandon (naturally, without admitting that it was absurd). Fine by me.
As for referencing each sentence, there is not reason to do so, because the citation at the end of the passage supports all of it. Adding a citation of the same source to each sentence would just cause clutter. Please see WP:REPCITE. We do not include consecutive cites of the same source in the same paragraph. The only exception to this are science-related article, because the editors of those articles came to that consensus.
As to the size of the paragraph, it is determined by the availability and relevance of the information in question to Hughes' career. Blanking most of the paragraph, as you did a short while ago, is not called for, and it is almost certain that other editors and administrators will agree with me on this. Doing it again will likely result in its reversion, and warnings to you. If you want to make controversial edits, then you are expected to begin a discussion on the article's talk page.
As far as the issue of the stola, I'll change that to peplos, as you mentioned in an earlier edit summary. Nightscream (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, buddy, but what you wrote would result in a visit to the principal or academic dean's office.70.112.229.80 (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@70.112.229.80: You're continuing to argue your original claim dogmatically, but without addressing the counterevidence I provided. Do you or do you not agree that plagiarism is defined as taking credit for another's work by presenting it as one's own through the omission of credit? Yes or no? Nightscream (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RealPowerDCU AdamHughes.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:RealPowerDCU AdamHughes.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) 02:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Count Wiley for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Count Wiley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Count Wiley until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Addicted to men listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Addicted to men. Since you had some involvement with the Addicted to men redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Seppi333 (Insert ) 11:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flash Thompson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sigil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jim Valentino, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ShadowHawk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Help with Iron Man's Armor deletionEdit

Hey I need your help. It has been suggested that Iron Man's Armor to be deleted and I need your help to prevent that from happening. I'm planning to use Iron Man Armor on Marvel Database, a Marvel Comics wiki to get the citation needed to save the article. I really need your help to prevent this from dying, please I really need you. Penguin7812 (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not Nightscream, but you'll be better off getting references from outside Marvel (that's what the "in-universe" objection means, that only Marvel fiction writers are talking about it). For example, https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/04/08/the-significance-of-iron-mans-mark-85-armor-in-avengers-endgame; https://thechive.com/2018/03/13/a-look-at-all-the-iron-man-armors-from-the-marvel-cinematic-universe-54-photos/; https://screenrant.com/iron-man-little-known-facts-armor/; https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/6/16975226/iron-man-armor-avengers-infinity-war-bleeding-edge-model-prime; https://io9.gizmodo.com/marvel-studios-original-iron-man-armor-appears-to-have-1825885603; https://www.armytimes.com/2019/02/08/sorry-marvel-fans-socom-says-real-life-iron-man-suit-remains-a-fantasy/ and so forth. --GRuban (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Penguin7812: You cannot use a wiki as a source on Wikipedia for reasons explained at WP:USERG. Ditto for IMDB, ComicBook.com, CBDB, etc. As GRuban pointed out, you can begin improving the article by adding reliable, secondary sources to it. GRuban's list duplicates many that I myself found while composing this response, so I'll just include the ones he didn't:
In the meantime, I've removed the speedy deletion tag, but there's nothing stopping the nominator from nominating it using the deletion nomination procedure, which involves a discussion by other editors, and whose tag (unlike the speedy deletion tag) cannot be removed simply because we disagree with it. So let's get cracking on adding secondaries to that article!
@GRuban: Two points of clarification regarding your comment "you'll be better off getting references from outside Marvel (that's what the "in-universe" objection means"
  • First, Marvel Database is not Marvel. It's a wiki operated by Fandom, which has no connection with Marvel Entertainment.
  • Second, the reason we need to rely on material outside of Marvel is because Wikipedia's material must be derived primarily from secondary sources, and not primary ones, which is explained at WP:PSTS. This has nothing to do with the need for material to be written primarily in out-universe style as opposed to in-universe style, which is a completely unrelated matter explained at WP:OUTUNIVERSE.
Quite right on all counts, I bow to the master. --GRuban (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
LOL. If I am a "master", then it is only because I the editing community here help make me one. :-)
@Penguin7812: Btw the way, Penguin, I forgot to mention the book Iron Man: Beneath the Armor by Andy Mangels. I got a copy for four bucks back in 2013, hoping to use it to shore up the article, but given my backlog, I never got around to doing so. I highly recommend you getting a copy if you intend to dive into fixing the article. There's currently a $2.50 copy on Amazon. Nightscream (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no interest in rolling up my sleeves and contributing to fixing this article, because I don't see evidence that it is significant enough outside of the Marvel Universe and Iron Man himself to merit its own article. I feel that it should at the very least be merged into an Iron-Man-related article, rather than continuing to stand on its own. If it continues to exist, it needs serious help/cleanup. Dylanvt (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Look at the messages right above yours, dude. Nightscream (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Responding to your edit summary, not the messages above, which I didn't see before. Dylanvt (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Look what I really meant when saying using the Marvel Database for citation was getting information like the footnotes of the articles in Iron Man Armor, just getting the information from the database for example the issues every armor appeared.Penguin7812 (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
As a starting point, that's one thing, but I would only add those issues if you've confirmed it yourself upon tracking down those issues. I recommend Read Comic Online for this, or just consult those sources that GRuban and I mentioned. The Verifiability and Citation policies require us to cite the source that the editor directly derived the information from. Nightscream (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Remote location listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Remote location. Since you had some involvement with the Remote location redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 21:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adi Granov, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Liberatore and Amsel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Absolute Carnage articleEdit

Hey, how are you doing? I hope you're having a great time. I wanted to discuss something with you. I recently created a draft of Draft:Absolute Carnage since new information was released. I really want to your thoughts on my draft. I hope to hear you soon. Penguin7812 (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Penguin7812: I'm okay. We just had the East Coast Comicon this past weekend. I met and photographed a bunch of people, including the cast of Batman: The Animated Series, and Ross Mullan, who played the White Walker that Samwell killed in "Second Sons", and who later played another White Walker in "Oathkeeper". I haven't uploaded my pics yet. How are you doing?
Just glancing at your draft, let me see what jumps out at me:
  • Only the first word and proper nouns should be capitalized in headings, per WP:SECTIONHEAD, so "tie-ins" should be lowercased.
  • When referring specifically to the storyline (as opposed to the name of a particular book), storylines are quoted, so you should add quotes to it in the opening line of the article.
  • I think "Critical reception" is the generally used title for that type of section. For articles on films and television, the word "critical" will be omitted from the main heading, since well-developed articles on those things also have box office or ratings info, which is a different type of reception, so unless you're including sales info in this article, "Critical" should be added, I think.
  • By the way, do you plan on adding such critical reception? If you need to find reviews, Comic Book Roundup is a good place to find them, in case you weren't already familiar with it.
  • Don't forget to add the author and publisher names to the citations. I would also archive those urls and add the archive info to the citations, since pages on some websites, like CBR.com, sometimes go dead, and I notice that one of your sites is a CBR page.
Beyond the above, it looks pretty good! Hope this helps! Nightscream (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Memorial DayEdit

--Rtkat3 (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Pete Davidson articleEdit

Why would you do this? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 08:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: First, it's the standard way inline citations are presented in articles.
Second, with respect to this particular article, that's the formatting the citations have been in, going at least as far back as September 2015, when I expanded the article, taking it from this to this, and throughout my subsequent expansion and editing of the article (Examples: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], etc.), until just last September, when you arbitrarily bundled the sources in the Ref section last September for no discernible reason, and without any rationale given in your edit summary, or discussion.
Third, this mess of citation errors is what happens when you bundle sources in the Ref sections, including ones not used in the article body, as seen when Watercooler97 made this edit.
Thus, I fixed the article. I fixed the citations errors, I added all the missing cite publication info that was omitted from dozens of citations, and integrated the citations back into the article body, as they should be. I explicitly detailed this in my edit summaries. Didn't you read them? So what exactly is the problem? How is it unintelligbile? And why did you blindly revert it, thus deleting the publication info I added to the cites, and restoring the list of cite errors? Nightscream (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
"it's the standard way inline citations are presented in articles" So? This article doesn't use that format. Why do you think it's okay to change it? The rationale is that editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change and this article has used list-defined references since I created it. That style should stand so that edits like this don't happen. Please show me where you are getting the idea that citations should be integrated into the article body. I reverted because it is incumbent on you to do the helpful things in your edits without doing the things you shouldn't do. Since you refuse to do that, I guess I'm going to have to do it myself. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 16:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Did you just remove the line breaks from my message above? Seriously? Just where the hell do you get off?
As to your "arguments:
"This article doesn't use that format."
Indeed it did. Until you arbitrarily changed it, as aforementioned.
"Why do you think it's okay to change it?"
Why do you think it's okay to change it? You were the one who change it after all. I, having been editing it for years, when it exhibited the more common format, merely changed it back.
The rationale is that editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change..."
And yet, you did exactly that. Why is okay for you to do this, but not me? Why the double standard? Can you explain how this is not hypocrisy on your part?
"...and this article has used list-defined references since I created it."
And it used body-integrated references for far longer. Again, you provided no rationale for this, and did not seek a discussion with those who edited it and expanded it more frequently. Why is this?
One more time: Why did you initially revert all that work without first reading the edit summaries and thus noticing the fixing of the citation errors and the addition of the missing cite publication errors, as evidenced not only by your blanket revert, but also by your "Why would you do this?" question above? I've answered your questions. Can you please answer mine?
Also, since I edit the article and add material to it more frequently than you do, I tend to use clearer and more descriptive ref names, especially where a publication is cited more than once in the article, as opposed to arbitrary ones, as it makes editing them easier. Why did you revert these too? Nightscream (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I refactored your comment. You have now removed any leading colons, so it's unintelligible to a screen reader, so I've changed them again to be accessible. "Why did you initially revert all that work without first reading the edit summaries and thus noticing the fixing of the citation errors and the addition of the missing cite publication errors, as evidenced not only by your blanket revert, but also by your "Why would you do this?" question above?" Because it's your responsibility to fix your errors and you're obliging me to do a lot of work to clean up your deliberate mistakes. If I come to an article with an unsourced claim and fix that but also change the established British English to American English just because it's what I like, then someone else would be entirely justified in telling me to go back and fix what I did. You refuse, so I'm wasting my time cleaning up after you. It seems like you did not read WP:CITEVAR which states (emphasis added), "As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article." And I am and I did. Plus, I added the relevant template a month ago and I guess you think it just doesn't apply to you...? I'm grateful for all the constructive edits you've made but that doesn't mean you get to do what you want according to what you happen to like. I can't make out all the changes you did here, so if you want to re-add the constructive parts, that would be much appreciated. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 16:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: "Because it's your responsibility to fix your errors"

Non sequitur. We're talking about how I fixed the list of cite errors and added missing publication info to cites that omitted them. Those are not errors on my part. They're improvements. You initially reverted them, apparently blindly.

"If I come to an article with an unsourced claim and fix that but also change the established British English to American English just because it's what I like, then someone else would be entirely justified in telling me to go back and fix what I did. You refuse...."

Okay, this makes zero sense. First of all, how you come to an article with an unsourced claim, and then fix it? How is this analogized with my fixing the list of citation errors and missing publication info in the other cites that were the work of someone else? Are you implying, or under the impression that I created that list of errors or omitted that cite publication info?? Whatever your perception here, no one asked you to "clean up" anything of mine. The fact remains that you not only reverted an aspect of the article you disliked, but also two other valid improvements to it, so this idea that you "cleaned up after me" makes no sense. Indeed, the fact that you asked me above why I did the edits, and then, in your second revert, addressed the issue of the list of errors and missing cite publication info by retaining or re-adding those edits (Thank you for doing so, btw), would seem to be an indication that after I pointed this out to you, you realized that I was right on those two points, and responded accordingly. Thus, you didn't "clean up" after me, you merely retained the legit portions of my edits, as you should've done in the first place.

Second, I have no idea what you mean by the statement, "You refuse", since no one presented any directive to me that I was capable of refusing. So what are you talking about?

"If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article..."

So noted. I'll bookmark that policy and make efforts to keep it in mind going forward. However, when I first did an expansion of that article in 2015, that was not the format. Did someone change it between your addition of that template and 2015? Out of curiosity, why did you not change it back for some time? Nightscream (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hm. Funny how you're telling me what we're talking about in a thread I started... Anyway, as I said, you made improvements for sure--that's not in doubt. What you also did is things you shouldn't have done. And since those were all mixed together, I didn't want to have to take my time to untangle all that but you obliged me to do it, so I spent an hour doing that. Please don't do that to me anymore. I'm sorry if you don't understand that analogy but it is exactly like the one provided in WP:CITEVAR: just like with differences between AmE and BrE, there are differences in citation styles. Don't arbitrarily change one because you like it. Even if you do helpful things at the same time, don't do that. It seems like you deliberately refuse to understand this. Can you please acknowledge that there are differences in citation styles and it's not okay for Person A to arbitrarily change them from the style that Person B already had just because he doesn't like them? Your appeal is "they do it this way in other articles" which is explicitly what WP:CITEVAR says to not do. Re: why I didn't change it back: there are only 24 hours in a day and I didn't have the Organize Refs user script that does it automatically. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 17:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Jesus, did you actually continue this thread after my last message?
"Funny how I'm telling me what we're talking about in a thread you started"???? What the fuck does one have to do with the other? You're saying that the tendency of some people to go off on tangents or make irrelevant comments does not apply to the person who started the conversation? How do you figure this? Are you implying that being the originator of a conversation in some way inoculates you from this tendency? How do you figure this?
Seriously, learn what a non sequitur is, dude. Nightscream (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:UnionCityNASA.jpgEdit

 

The file File:UnionCityNASA.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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

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

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

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard: CommasEdit

Hello.

Re: your removals of commas, please see WP:Copyedit#Punctuation.

Best regards.

HandsomeFella (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella:
Thanks. Please note that my revert also undid inappropriate things that are not called for by that MOS, such as a commas added between "Reno, Nevada" and "warehouse" in the phrase Reno, Nevada warehouse. Nightscream (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Todd Allen GatesEdit

 

The article Todd Allen Gates has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A biography of a seemingly non-notable author that fails WP:NAUTHOR. There are currently no third party references being used to indicate notability. Doing searches has turned up no substantial sources on the author or either of his books.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.Rorshacma (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Humanoids's H1 (article needed)Edit

Hello, sir.

Thank you for correcting a few things i missed when I wrote about Humanoids' H1 project in the article of Mark Waid. I must tell you I don't know too much about him, but I'ld love to publish an article about the H1 Universe. However, I write you because I think you know more about Waid and the others, so I'ld probably need your help to esxpand. This is the draft (Draft:H1 (comics)).

Hope you read this. Thank you, anyway. F. E. Puricelli (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Templates: Thor and Venom families trees for deletionEdit

Hello there, how are you? I wanted to ask you a question if you don't mind. I along with other editors have discussed here about deleting Template:Thor family tree and Template: Venom family tree, since they're kinda unneeded, since there are already articles discussing the same subject. So I'm asking where could I discuss the deletion about these Templates and have editors join the discussion? Thank you for reading this. Penguin7812(Talk Page) 11:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Em engine listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Em engine. Since you had some involvement with the Em engine redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Adam Hughes#MaterialsEdit

You undid an edit I made to this page. The original (and current) version says:

When penciling his convention drawings, Hughes prefers 11 x 14 Strathmore bristol, as he prefers penciling on the rougher, vellum surface, although he uses smoother paper for brush inking, ...

Bristol paper can be made smooth (plate) and rough (vellum). See Bristol board#Applications or see Strathmore company's FAQ, "What is the difference between bristol smooth & bristol vellum?"

So it doesn't make sense to say that Hughes uses bristol paper because he likes its vellum surface. He uses bristol vellum paper because he likes its rough surface. Anyway, cheers. apt-ark (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Apt-ark: Thanks for the clarification. Sorry I got the materials confused. After decades of shopping at art supply stores, I still can't get the terms of straight, preferring to just open each book or pad and run the palm of my hand across the surface to go by feel!
But in addition to addressing the concerns you described above, you also removed his brand preference, his size preference, and removed "materials" from the heading title, for which you provided no rationale. You also added underscores to the "pencil" section wikilink, for no reason that I could discern, since wikilinks do not require them. I just now fixed the error you described. Hope that resolves this. Thanks again. :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Nightscream: I split "Influences, approach, and materials" into two sections—"Influences and approach" and "Materials"—because the content was already naturally divided into these topics. Cheers apt-ark (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Apt-ark: Right. I forgot about that part in your edit summary. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FlashThompsonAmazingFantasyV1No15.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:FlashThompsonAmazingFantasyV1No15.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. NeoBatfreak (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BolivarTrask ByValentineDeLandro.pngEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:BolivarTrask ByValentineDeLandro.png. 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. NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Comic Book ResourcesEdit

I would appreciate if you participate in the ongoing move discussion. There is no canvassing here. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

EvergreenFir's false accusation of edit warring on Adam Ruins EverythingEdit

Please stop edit warring on Adam Ruins Everything. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Please stop falsely accusing editors of editing warring. The bright line rule is three reverts. I've reverted the article twice. Please calm yourself. Nightscream (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Nightscream".