User talk:Nightscream/Archive 3

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Images listed for deletion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.

Thank you. BigrTex 23:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist

Only the most recent change to an article will be the one on the watchlist. So, if a vandal makes an edit, then somebody reverts it, then you view your watchlist, only the revert will show on it. You can change an option in your preferences under the Watchlist tab to show all changes. --Geniac 14:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Kirk Cameron

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Nightscream! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 02:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Julie McCullough

Hi there. Usually, when some part of the article disappears, it is usually because you forgot to close a <ref> tag, which "eats" the article until the end. I see you put that you cannot link to her MySpace account. Try using the {{myspace}} template. Note that this template should only be used for "official" ones (that is the "unofficial" condition for the template to "stay alive"). If it begins to be used for any page (like a non notable band or some fan MySpace account), it would be sent again to deletion. Take care! -- ReyBrujo 04:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

RW Images

I would really appreciate it if you would refrain from uploading pictures I've uploading just so you could have your name on them and take credit for them. You re-uploaded all of the RW San Francisco pictures I screencapped on April 12 of last year and replaced them on the page for no apparent reason. Do your own work please. HeyNow10029 03:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If your intent was just to "improve the article" then why did you go through all the trouble of reuploading all the pictures under completely different names? Hmm, that's a tad suspicious. When I think a picture needs improvement, I either contact the person who orginally uploaded it or I reupload it under the same name so the person who originally went through the trouble of screencapping it will still get credit. But then again I don't get my kicks by taking credit for other people's work. But that's just me. =-) HeyNow10029 03:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop

Read WP:CANVAS. --- RockMFR 06:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

RW San Francisco?

Are you sure it's me that you wanted to get that message to? I don't have anything to do with that article. Madmaxmarchhare 08:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's no bother... just checkin' to make sure that you wrote to who you thought you wrote to. Have a great February. Madmaxmarchhare 04:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hartz Mountain Industries

I don't really maintain this article and I only know as much about the company as a brand in a pet store. But if you were to ask me about the added external link, to me it comes off as a blog or message board for those dissatisfied with the company. If you know about WP:EL, that type of site is discouraged, and I would remove it. Tinlinkin 19:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BergenlineStation.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BergenlineStation.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:UnionCityMap3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:UnionCityMap3.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Municipal flyers are generally not public domain; only works of the federal government are. --NE2 22:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:HarmonMeadowMap.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HarmonMeadowMap.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Images

Products of municipal governments are generally not released to the public domain. Please stop. --NE2 06:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:DavidPuckRainey.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DavidPuckRainey.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page.

Other images that fall into this category ("fair use" images that represent only what the individual looks like) are:

  1. Image:PamLing.jpg
  2. Image:CoryMurphy.jpg

Thanks. --Bob 22:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Stephen Kings house

I'm not sure what your argument is against using it. Do you feel it violates his privacy? I'm not sure how a picture of his house would do that. Wjhonson 17:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I did a little looking around, and it appears his house is an often-photographed local attraction. In this case, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a picture of his house as long as he hasn't objected to it. Frise 18:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:SDiegoConCtr.jpg

I was wondering whether you could substantiate your statement on the picture's page that states it is in the public domain. Is that comics guide in the public domain? Thanks, Yonatan (contribs/talk) 23:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but wikipedia no longer accepts images that were just given permission to be used on wikipedia. If you wish (and think it's fair use), you can use it as fair use (and add the appropriate template and a fair use rationale). Yonatan (contribs/talk) 06:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

NASA Image

I found the Hoboken, New Jersey NASA image at: http://earth.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/EFS/lowres/NM21/NM21-766-65.JPG. Luckily, Union City is in the image's range. Latitude0116 20:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:MohammedBilal2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MohammedBilal2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 48 hours after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bob 01:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

JKD

Because that is your opinion and I disagree. Does wiki work by mob rule? Do you own the article?

re: Corey Clark article

Hello, Nightscream. I still think it should be separate, since the majority of the information presented was from Corey Clark's interview on ABC, excerpts from his E-book, and his public statements following the internal investigation and the parody. The tone of that section seemed oriented towards a more "pro-Clark" slant, so at the time it appeared to be more appropriate to annotate it as "Corey Clark's perspective" since it didn't appear (to me, at least) that it was from a NPOV.

At any rate, hopefully it'll stop being vandalized by the well-meaning (but overzealous) anonymous user who had frequent grammar and writing style issues, or the anonymous users who would delete everything and input spam-like adult comments.

Personally, I am surprised that Clark's article has encountered so many edit issues and vandalism. Articles on William Hung and Clay Aiken do not seem to encounter nearly the amount of edit warring, even though they are the subject of media and internet jokes on a semi-regular basis. I could be incorrect, but that's the impression I have from reading the various American Idol entries in Wikipedia in the past month or so. User:Ptah3773

"Geniac, the protection tag on the article says it'll stay there until the "editing disputes are resolved." I don't know if there is a prescribed procedure for this other than consensus..." - See Wikipedia:Protection policy#Unprotection.
"...and since 69.180.238.139 is impossible to talk to, I'd appreciate if you'd weigh in on the various points that he and I are "discussing" on that Talk Page." - I am reading what both of you are saying, but have not had time to reply to much yet. Although it may be difficult, I would advise that you continue discussing the dispute on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#First step: Talk to the other parties involved.
"I apologize for responding to him on your Talk Page, which I won't do again." - Thank you. --Geniac 13:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the points you just outlined on my talk page, I think changing the protection from full protection to semi-protection is probably justified. I recommend consulting the admin who protected the article, User:Cbrown1023 or posting a request at WP:RFPP. --Geniac 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Nightscream. Your points are valid and if in the final version it's re-merged, no issue from me.

After reading the various diatribes from anonymous user 69.180.238.139 on the Clark article discussion page, I am not sure what I can conceivably do to resolve the issue, other than pointing out the obvious: he (or she) clearly wants to put the article in a pro-Clark slant and has been unwilling to receive feedback on the numerous violations of NPOV policy, writing style/tone, and general etiquette. User:Ptah3773

Your posting to WP:RFPP was removed unreviewed by a bot in this edit. I don't know for sure why, but maybe because you didn't sign your posting and trying again may work. --Geniac 19:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • i will be happy as long as nighttime uses the same grammatical corrections to the idol and abdul comments and press releases that he uses on clarks comments and press releases. to say the word alleged about one side of a conflicts statements as he consistently keeps doing with clark and not the other side is slighting the article to be pro one sided and against the other side. if this is a place of fact than printing clarks statements as factually released by him is the only right way to edit this article. as would be appropriate to do the same with idol and abduls press releases and statements. it's a fact that both parties said what they said in sourced content referenced time and again to bedtime so he needs to leave ALL facts the way they read and not interject his conjecture into the facts. its like simon saying he hates a contestant, yes america votes for who stays but the opinion of the judges or editors in this case can carry weight to sway a viewer or readers opinion one way or the other. this place has nothing to do with how well the article reads as if its a magazine article if fact is the ultimate undertone you are trying to achieve. if all facts are inputed into the article as is and left alone without inputing alleged in either statement, than and only than can readers make up their own minds about the actual facts. your injecting personal thoughts into this article, and you are someone who didn't even watch the special, nightlady you seem to try and discredit a lot of what abc sourced and aired. it's like having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. he hasn't followed what's gone on with clark and yet he tells someone who knows a lot about the matter that their facts are wrong. doesn't make sense.69.180.238.139(Talk) (User:Liaishard) 00:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"I would appreciate it if you would weigh in on the six points I outlined in my recent post on the Talk Page" - As far as I can tell, you are making solid points backed up by sources. My access to some of the sources is limited during the day, so I will have to check it out better this evening.
"I would ask if there is some decisive action we can take to resolve this, such as asking for a consensus of other editors, for example." - See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Further dispute resolution, which discusses informal and formal Mediation, Requests for Comments and Surveys. --Geniac 14:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Hello again, Nightscream. Upon reviewing the Talk page of the article in question, there really isn't anything of merit for me to add. I do not have the time or resources to re-write the article in accordance with APA or MLA formating/grammar. User:Ptah3773
  • Hello, Nightscream. Again, there really isn't anything I could add, other than mentioning that after reading Liaishard's comments on the Talk page that the tone, user comments, and grammar were becoming increasingly similar to the versions presented by anonymous user 69.180.238.139. I am sorry, but I do not see that being a valid comment to add to the discussion on the article in question. User:Ptah3773

Re:Julie McCullough

The image was removed because it was deleted per WP:CSD I7. enochlau (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use - the fair use image could be replaced by a free equivalent - she is still alive after all. enochlau (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It was tagged as a TV screenshot, so it was not licensed under a free license like GFDL. The only way such media can be used on Wikipedia is if it meets fair use criteria, but this one fails that criteria, because it is possible for a free alternative to be created. enochlau (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic slurs: Nez Percé

It appears that you added this term as an ethnic slur in Sept 2005. Can you give a little of the background? If you did not add it, or don't remember, no sweat. Just curious as someone (w/o a sig) posed the question on the Nez Perce Talk Page. Thanks in advance. --Robbie Giles 04:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. This applies to user and article talk pages. Regarding the Corey Clark article; the talk page is getting a bit long; I'll make an archive. Also, I will look over the latest postings shortly. --Geniac 19:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cully Hammer

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Cully Hammer, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --VS talk 12:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on Corey Clark. In the future, please solve editing disputes through discussion rather than edit warring. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Please not there is not an exception clause in the 3RR for reverting POV material. See [1] for more details. Heimstern Läufer 01:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

checkY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Per some concerns about possible BLP violations in the edits reverted by Nightscream.

Request handled by: Heimstern Läufer 02:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's the issue: the unsourced rule only applies to negative information about living persons. I've reexamined the material that was added to the article, and I don't see how it falls under this criterion, as it doesn't seem to me to say anything about Clark at all. If it does, please explain. (Also leaving unblock template for other admins to view.) Heimstern Läufer 02:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Heimstern Laufer. There is a reasonable interpretation under which the removed information reflected unfavorably on article-subject Clark. In any event, BLP applies to any living person, whether or not he or she is the subject of the article, and the producers of American Idol are identifiable living people. The disputed material may have been borderline as a BLP violation, but I find that this contributor appears to have made a good-faith effort to enforce BLP policy. I would unblock. Given divided opinions, I am posting this to ANI for review. Newyorkbrad 02:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK,I guess it could be seen that way. Unblocked. Sorry about this. A suggestion for the future: If you revert edits per BLP concerns, it's a good idea to say so in your edit summary. Then admins will understand your reasoning better. Again, sorry about this. Heimstern Läufer 02:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You should take a look at the discussion on ANI. In the future, where the BLP violation may be borderline, it may be best to bring the matter to the BLP noticeboard rather than continue reverting. Newyorkbrad 03:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nightscream, I am sorry I have not been more pro-active in areas that may need immediate attention and getting back to you with decisive answers. It is sometimes hard to keep up with lengthy discussions. I intend to eliminate the bulk of my watchlist (currently hovering around 9,000) so I can focus on a few needful things rather than constantly play catch-up. --Geniac 03:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, don't aplogize Heimstern, I"m sure you were just trying to make the best judgment you could, and for my part, I should've been more precise in saying "unsourced" instead of NPOV. I admit, though, that I didn't know that the unsourced rule only applied to "negative" material. (It seems that even now, after two years, I'm still learning new policies and rules, or wrinkles thereof.) Thank you for your decision, and thank you, Newyorkbrad, for your intervention. And Geniac, don't apologize; I figured you were just busy with other articles, as your Contributions Page suggested. I just hope that you or someone else can get through to Liaishard, because it's clear that she won't listen to me. If others intervened in this article as they do on most others that I edit, I wouldn't have to deal with her myself. Let me know when the block is effectively gone, because I still can't edit anything other than this page. Thanks. Nightscream 03:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you are caught in an autoblock. You need to either post another unblock request with the exact text of the message you get when you try to edit, or if you don't want to do that (the message will contain your IP address), e-mail a message to the unblock mailing list. Newyorkbrad 03:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "with the exact text of the message you get when you try to edit"? And where is the unblock mailing list? Can you help me out? Thanks again. Nightscream 03:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Try now. I've removed the autoblock. For future reference, there isn't any point emailing unblock-en-l unless you include your IP address and the other information on the block notice. The mailing list is just an alternative to using the unblock template, we still need the same information. Sarah 04:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Corey Clark

Delt with but you need to say who took the photo how it ended up under the GFDL and idealy when the photo was taken.Geni 03:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

you can resize it by reduceing the number after "| Img_size =" however given the copyright issues with the image there is little point in doing so.Geni 10:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey night scream, i uploaded an image that i personally took of Corey Clark and Rueben Studdard at a show in nashville tennessee but it's huge on the article page, and i'm at a loss as to how i shrink it down, if you could work some of your magic that would be great thanks Liaishard (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:CoreyClark.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CoreyClark.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Real World (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 15:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:RupertSheldrake.jpg listed for deletion

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:RupertSheldrake.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[2][3]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. ^demon[omg plz] 20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Pedro Zamora

Hi I just wanted to thank you for all the work you did on the Pedro Zamora article. I was a good friend of his and know his family well. He was an amazing person and I still feel his loss. I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate all you have done to keep his article true.Callelinea 00:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence
Please accept this Barnstar of Diligence for exceptional perseverance in researching Pedro Zamora. Cheers, --Callelinea 00:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sandman

Hi--I'm not an administrator, but when a vandal ignores all warnings, I report them here [4]. I have found this to be very effective; usually an administrator looks into these complaints within minutes, and blocks the vandal if appropriate. Best of luck, JNW 00:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the issue. It might be worth finding a compromise though, perhaps get it into the lead that although the Sandman character was born William Baker, he is more commonly known as Flint Marko. I should imagine a lot of people will be coming to this from the film, where that is his name. So it's best to clear it up early save having the same issue over and over again. As for User:216.54.173.2, that's a bit more like vandalism. I see the IP has been blocked, if it continues you're better off going straight to WP:AIV. At least there you will get the attention of an admin who's "in" rather than wait for me to show up. Vandalism blocks should really be given as soon after the vndalism as possible, because they are preventative, not punishment. Steve block Talk 07:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I agree that the way the other person has it it doesn't read right. I'm not so sure we treat media adaptations with secondary prominence, we've got to bear in mind the NPOV policy. But all I'm asking for here is adding some extra text to the lead. Something which makes it clear that in the comics he was born Baker and adopted the name Marko, but that in other adaptations he is born Marko. Otherwise people come into the bio and the first thing thy see is the name William Baker. That's going to confuse people. Maybe write this in the lead, which is supposed to summarise the important aspects of the article, of which this is one: The Sandman appeared in whatever issue, and although it is revealed in whatever issue that the character was born William Baker, the character later adopted the name Flint Marko. In some versions of the character, especially the one seen in Spiderman 3, Flint Marko is the only name associated with the character. All we're aiming for here is to clear up confusion, yes? Anyways, I'm off out for the day. Have a think. Steve block Talk 08:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Perfect. That suits me down to the ground, and should solve any confusion. Sorry if I wasn't clear before or possibly misunderstood you, but you are absolutely right that stuff about the movie wouldn't belong in a section discussing the comic version. Cheers for that, take it easy, Steve block Talk 19:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, you know every time he was in his giant form, he would roar and growl and thats what made him monsterous to me. And I thought it would be good to put what his size would be like compared to the construction site. Anyway, sorry man. Johnny542 19:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for your kind words regarding the Fallen Angel article. I thought it would be good to shape it up a little more, and pack it with enough essential information that it might actually help the series gain readers. I was a little concerned about the extensive footnotes, but I figured too many would be better than too few.Jeff-El 14:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD Help

Hi, six of my articles have put up by AfD by the same person and are being voted on all by the same persons.. I was wondering if you could look the articles over and the things written on the discussion pages and give me your honest answer as to should they be up for vote or am I being paranoid? The articles are:

Last week I lost one of my articles and I thought it was a good faith AfD but now with six more up for vote this week I think there is more behind these AfD then good faith. Callelinea 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your imput. I still feel there is something fishy going on so I will be putting up all my articles up for review and then I will be leaving wikipedia.. I am aware that some of my articles do not reach the "notable" stage, but I did not want to put anything in the article that was not verifiable.. And since I will have no no info until my return trip from Cuba in August. Then all I can say is to screw all those that are going after my articles.. As Richard Nixon once said " You won't have me to kick around anymore". Callelinea 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Calhoun quote

I removed the Calhoun quote you added to that character's page. Quotes should be part of article text, where they have context and whatnot. Unfortunately, I errantly hit a key on my keyboard and entered in the edit summary that I "moved" it to wikiquote. Alas, it was more a suggestions than a statement, i.e. it should have read "move". The short version is, I did not move it -- but you mind find a home for it and other Calhoun quotes there. --EEMeltonIV 04:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

J.K. Woodward

Sure, no problem. This interview[5] describes his process:

"From the art shown in solicitations for the new "Fallen Angel," it is clear that Woodward's style involves more than just pencil and ink. He follows a three-step process which results in completely colored art with a very unique look. To clarify this though, he explained, "The thing about the process I use-- there really is no inking or coloring in the traditional comic book sense. The first step is the pencils, which are usually pretty rough. Since I don't have to send them to an inker, I generally don't worry too much about these. This is the fastest part of the process since any thing about the pencils I'm not happy with, I can always fix in the next step. The second step is painting with gouache. I do this in black and white for three reasons:

First, it helps me to concentrate on tones, light and shadow. In my opinion, this is where the mood is and it requires more thought than simply the color. Second, it allows me to change color more easily if I have a black and white base. I like to allow the editor or writer options for changes wherever I can. Third, it saves money. Gouache is not cheap, so buying only two colors (one tube black & one tube white), I can save some money.

'The third step is applying color. This is done by airbrushing the base colors over the tones which have already been applied with gouache.'"

In the supplements for the Fallen Angel: To Serve In Heaven TPB from IDW, Woodward himself says,

"I'm often asked (or it's often assumed) that my work is done digitally. The truth is, most pages have no digital aid. Occasionally, I will add things to the page that are missing. Sometimes I forget a detail or sometimes I purposely leave something out because I feel I can achieve it better digitally."

He then goes on to describe an instance when he did use digital methods: Juris turning to dust after leaving Bete Noir. Hope this helps! Jeff-El 12:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Kerry Washington

Sure, seems obvious: 1. Better quality; 2. more flattering; and 3. three years more recent. --David Shankbone 02:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Without a doubt. --David Shankbone 02:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankie Abernathy

If you look at the talk page, there is a discussion on the notability tag. Please add to the discussion further, before removing the tag. Ckessler 19:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Gunslinger

Some time ago, there were lists of episodes that harbored a screenshot from each episode. There was a major crackdown to remove all these screenshots because they did not directly contribute to the content at hand. Usually for articles, one image is supposed to be used as identification. So when the miniseries for this comes out, we'd use the miniseries cover instead to ID the whole series. But basically, unless each issue was notable enough to warrant their own article, and this is rarely ever the case except for monumental issues, showing all the covers isn't appropriate. The only exception would be content commenting on the artwork for each cover, if there is real-world context for each one. Hope that makes sense. If possible, I think it would be appropriate to provide an external link to the artwork for this series to counter the strict fair use criteria by allowing a reader to go offsite. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Union City

Is there a reference source that actually documents a distinct definition for each of those words?

(Btw, someone at the Wiki pinic mentioned that you might come. Did you? I don't recall seeing anyone there with your name on their badge.) Nightscream 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I'll start with the BTW: I had planned the date on my calendar, but relative was in the hospital in Brooklyn. On the way home we passed up the West Side Highway, so close to Central Park, but not close enough. I would have enjoyed meeting you and other folks in person. As to Union City being the densest city in the United States, I have been searching for the perfect source -- one that uses those exact words -- for nearly a year. The sources I have added are OK, but far from definitive. I could give you the following -- The Most & the Least, Time (magazine), November 9, 1962. "MOST DENSELY POPULATED CITY: Union City, N.J., with 40,138 people per sq. mi. Next: Hoboken, N.J. with 37,262. New York City has only 24,697—although one of its boroughs, Manhattan, jams 77,195 into each square mile." -- but that's 45 years old. Another one is more recent -- A case in point is Union City, New Jersey, right across the Hudson River from Manhattan. The most densely populated city in the U.S. (with over 52,000 residents per square mile), it has an ethnic mix that used to be predominantly Cuban but now includes immigrants from Central and South America as well as the Caribbean." -- but it's a tangential comment in an article about education, not population. This next one comes from a government source -- http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/techconf99/whitepapers/paper1.html "The Secretary's Conference on Educational Technology-1999"], United States Department of Education. "Union City, New Jersey, is located in Hudson County, directly across the Hudson River from Manhattan. With 60,000 residents in 1.4 square miles, it is the most densely populated city in the United States." -- but it's using pre-2000 census data. I can't find the home run source, but it seems that there's enough out there to hang a hat on. Any thoughts? Alansohn 03:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Those are sources for the population density. I was asking about sources for the distinction you assert between "town" and "city".
However, the density issue itself merits discussion. Why did you delete the information I gave showing different sources giving different rankings to the various cities, including sources that post-date the 2000 Census? How were those not valid? Nightscream 03:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't remove any of the sources, they're all there, just used differently. The distinction is arbitrary, but Union city is incorporated as a City, and Guttenberg is incorporated as a Town. Guttenberg is more densely populated, but Union City is the most densely populated city. The wording that had existed previously was "The city's exact state and national ranking varies, depending on sources, with a 2000 report by the Center for Children and Technology placing it at #1,<ref name="CCT"/> a 2003 article at northjersey.com placing it at #2, behind New York City<ref name="northjersey"/> and the [[United States Census, 2000|U.S. Census]] placing it at #2 in the state behind [[Guttenberg]].<ref name="Census"/>" The source from The Record states that ""Passaic is the third most densely populated city in America, after Union City and New York City..."; it doesn't say it's number 2, it says it's first. As stated above, Guttenberg is denser, but it's a town, not a city. The previous statement in the lead, that "It is one of the most densely populated cities in the United States, with a density of 52,977.8 per square mile" does not the qualification that it is "one of" the most densely populated cities, so the wording was removed. I am still searching for a more definitive source, but sources are provided that do support the claim that Union City is the "most densely populated city in the United States." Alansohn 04:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Alan, the only source you provided for any distinction between "town" and "city" is another Wiki article that is itself unreferenced. (I tagged it for this reason.) Moreover, that article, which you created, makes it clear that this distinction only applies to New Jersey. What does this have to do with a national ranking, or for that matter, common parlance, which I've never observed recognizing any such distinction between the two words? Nightscream 04:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Appropriate sources have been added to the Town (New Jersey) article; it's an oldie. Each state defines what a "city" is, and different definitions are used by each state, and the United States Census Bureau uses these definitions. See this link for data for "Union City city, New Jersey" (i.e., the City of Union City") and this link for "Guttenberg town, New Jersey". If you want to see how out of whack common parlance is with how cities are defined and what common sense would dictate, take a look at Corbin City, New Jersey, whose population shot up to 530 as of the 2006 census estimate. Alansohn 05:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Pics from Wiknic

Hi, my brother sent me the pics from the Wiknic, which you had taken and sent to him. How do I upload them to my user page? May I do so, with your permission? Bearian 15:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you so much! I will not post the other pic, just the two you posted. I may not be able to do this right now, as I have to go to a lunch meeting with another teacher and do other stuff. Bearian 15:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I finally posted your images at my userpage and my WP portfolio page. Thanks again. Bearian 14:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Die Hard - McLean meeting Johnson

I agree with you removing the trivia section, but your reason for removing it is wrong - just because McLean never met the Johnson agents from the first film doesn't mean he isn't aware of them - therefore his groan in DH4 is quite justified. User:Mmm commentaries 10:56, 18 August 2007

Snape edit

I disagree with your assertion that Potter was doing something he wasn't supposed to be doing. You will recall that Potter was still learning what Snape was supposed to teach, and Potter inadvertantly picked up one of Snape's thoughts (frankly, I don't even recall the Pensive being used in this instance, as they were trying to protect Harry's mind from outside intrusion, and Harry's pushing back allowed him a glimpse into Snape's mind - am I incorrect?). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

AS you recounted the tale, it came back to me. You are correct. Thanks. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm to blame for the conflicts; most of the changes to active voice, which produced much of what you complain, were made and re-made by User talk:Whatsupwestcoast. I've now seen some of your justification and changed a couple of my actual edits back to your suggestions, as I generally agree with those. I have no particular problme with the occassional use of passive voice, though I have touched up a few of the sentences after they were changed by others. You'll note that I did not make much of your changes either, and was only annotating references when they were changed back again to active. Magidin 05:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Video Professor

Hello, Nightscream, Since you have edited the Video Professor page before, I'd very much appreciate if you get involved in the current discussion of the entry. Your input would be very helpful. Thanks, Nsk92 12:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

TheRealWorldWiki

Hello I've put in a request for a The Real World Wiki the other day and I found it 2 days ago.My request for it was 3 days ago.My question is am I the founder?If so how do I put the logo or can I put a logo up?My last question is If it is about The Real World can you help me get that site up and running?Reply here.P.S the site is www.therealworld.wikia.com.P.S.S I created an account and I'm not under the Active User Page -03:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhmmm you didn't answer my questions.75.85.204.119 03:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

At Wikia.com Do you know anyone I can ask? 75.85.204.119 05:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Brian Sapient

Looks like someone already has turned it back into a redirect. As it was it would have been a speedy deletion. I've added it to my watch list. Cheers --Michael Johnson 03:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Tratare

Omg! You're a great artist. How did you draw those sketches on your user page. Anyway, I don't know. I just like the other picture better tho. Tratare 19:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still reverting it. Your running to an admin won't change that, deary Tratare 00:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not an admin, but this isn't a situation where an admin will get involved in his official capacity anyway. Content disputes really aren't what they're for. But if you want my opinion, this is a case where simply being patient may well be successful, if the uploader of the picture there now doesn't attach an appropriate tag. So wait a week. When the image gets deleted, put the free-license one back. If the image doesn't get deleted and becomes licensed appropriately, it may well remain in the infobox, but there's no reason both images can't be on the page, is there? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Hey, it's not problem. After thinking it over, I think your picture works just fine for the article. It's better than the other one now that I think about it. :) Thank you for coming to me so respectfully about it on my talk page. I thought that was really nice of you. Yea, I am not going to hide it. I think your pictures of the male phsyique are hot. There a turn on. Wow! I have never seen a male's body drawn so beautifully before. Mmmm! lol! I am so gay right now. Literally. ;) Tratare 03:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha! I can't say I am, but I take it your boss has very good taste. So with your detailed eye to create such male beauty as shown in your artwork, you MUST be able to see why your boss and I think the way we do. Do you have as good as taste as us IF you know what I mean? haha Tratare 11:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok! This is awkward then. Goodbye! Have a nice life! :)Tratare 17:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Your image uploads

Hi. I notice that you have uploaded a number of images with captions and author marks built in. You may not be aware of Wikipedia's policy on the matter, but under Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images, Wikipedia does not accept user-created images that are watermarked, distorted, or have credits in the image itself. Would you consider supplying versions of these images without such marks? The CC license states that anyone reusing your work must keep intact all copyright notices, so Wikipedia cannot remove them from the images ... however, we don't accept images so marked and they would need to be deleted if you are not willing to remove the notices. Thank you for your consideration. --B 06:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

ossie davis

hi...i just opened up a discussion on the ossie davis talk page. cheers--emerson7 | Talk 17:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:CruzBacklit.jpg

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:CruzBacklit.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. →Lwalt ♦ talk 01:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Roger Ebert

Just wanted to say, nice edit: placement, clarity, NPOV, the whole bit. --Orange Mike 14:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Midnighter edits

I am willing to consider that I am not using the cn tag precisely as I would want to. Clearly, you are more familiar with the material than I am. Reading it as someone who isn't familiar, I came across a lot of in-universe references where the plots were so convoluted that I thought that by adding cn tags, someone might simplify some of these convolutions. Mea culpa on that. Perhaps some (and by some, I mean a lot) of clean-up is needed, to make the material more accessible to the non-afficionado. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe citing is the wrong approach here. Maybe just trmming out those parts that are extraneous to the subjec tof the article. Do we really nee dto know the hair color? See where I am going with this, night? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

New York City Meetup

The Brooklyn Bridge New York City Meetup


Next: Saturday November 3rd, Brooklyn Museum area
Last: 8/12/2007
This box: view • talk • edit

The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there!--Pharos 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Tom Grindberg

A tag has been placed on Tom Grindberg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Bellito, master of all things Mac-related 23:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Peri’ah metsitsah

Hi. Why would you delete material that is supported by a cited source, replace with material that is not, and then put a citation tag on that new material? The citation given for the article indeed supports the description of the procedure seen in my version of the article. If you want to add to it, or provide a conflicting description, that would be reasonable, but only if you have a source for it, and even then, that does not justify removing the one already there. Thanks. Nightscream 17:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It was not clear that the material was covered under the citation. Since I was fairly sure it was not accurate (and apparently unsourced), I replaced it. So as not to act in a biased manner, I requested a source for my version.
I believe the article makes a couple other minor mistakes. For example, I think that "Peri’ah" and "metsitsah" are two separate acts. Secondly, I now notice that the custom is called "Hasidic." It is not a Hasidic custom, but a general Orthodox one. Furthermore, it is still practiced by most, if not all, Orthodox Jews, but not usually with physical contact. If the source also contains these mistakes, it is not a very good source. --Eliyak T·C 02:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
See Brit milah: Metzitzah --Eliyak T·C 02:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Since Christopher Hitchens is a well-known journalist, it would appear that he satisfies any reasonable criteria for credibility. The material is not "apparently unsourced", since I placed the citation in it. I can assure you that the details in the article are derived directly from the book, and if you want, I can scan the two pages to show them. Since the WP standard is attribution and credible sources, not truth, we cannot simply alter it by using your personal knowledge, which would violate WP:OR. What I would suggest is that you find some other source of equivalent credibility, so that if you want, we can add an alternate viewpoint to the article. Nothing I see on the Brit milah article contradicts this, as the phrase "peri'ah metsitsah" doesn't even show up in it. (If you were referring to some other aspect of that article, let me know.) Nightscream 02:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not doubt you that the material is found in Hitchens' book, as you describe. With all due respect to Christopher Hitchens, he does not determine Jewish practice. A good source for Jewish practice would be one of the codifications of Jewish law such as the Talmud, Mishnah Torah, the Shulchan Aruch], or modern responsa on the topic. No respectable Orthodox Jew would act not in accordance with these sources. It does not make sense to treat Hitchens him as a distinct opinion in this area. In terms of the current events sorounding the controversy, journalism and modern scholarship are of course the natural sources to turn to. I thought that it was self-evident that Hitchens would not be the source for Jewish practice, and assumed that the footnote referred to the information regarding the controversy.
In the Brit milah article, I provided you the direct link to the metzitzah section. Periah is mentioned elsewhere in the article without explanation (which there should be). It refers to peeling back the foreskin. As you note, "periah metzitzah" is not mentioned in the article at all. Nor is it available on Google as a phrase in any combination which I tried. I do not believe it exists. I will attempt to find some sources regarding metzitzah in Jewish practice.--Eliyak T·C 02:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure why you keep reverting my changes, which are now sourced. Maimonides was not Hassidic; he lived several hundred years before Hasidic Judaism came into existence; thus his record of metzitzah indicates that it is not hasidic. I can continue to bring sources from all the important Jewish sources, if you like. But apparently you do not care. Christopher Hitchens speaks the word of God. If Maimonides disagrees with him, he is "another source."
By "hassidic," Hitchens obviously means Haredim. This is a classical mistake, and would be enough to indicate that he did not research his background information well. But even if he means Haredim, he is still patently wrong, since Maimonides, the Shulchan Aruch and the Talmud are held by all Orthodox Jews. These are easily verifiable facts. Even were he not patently wrong on these counts, he would still not be a good source for the new name "periah metzitzah," which does not exist in the sources. Periah is not even the subject of the article.
As you say, Hitchens is a journalist. This makes him qualified, one would assume, to report on current events. He is not a Talmudist or other scholar of Jewish practice. In this area, it is his book that is the anomaly, not Maimonides.--Eliyak T·C 03:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I did read your comments to my page. You requested that I provide sources, which I have. My arguement against Hitchens is not ad hominem, since I have backed up my claims with a source. I am arguing that given two sources, we should trust the one with greater expertise. By the way, you are ignoring the valid points I made against Hitchens' research in this area.
The brit milah article, among other things, quotes several non-Hassidic sources on metzitzah, and provides a source that the procedure has the purpose of cleaning the wound, which would not be accomplished by sucking up the foreskin. It also uses the term metzitzah (again, found in Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, the Talmud, and responsa). It provides much information on the controversy as well.
I have, additionally, done a Google search for the Hebrew term "periah metzitzah," which can really only be spelled one way in Hebrew. [6] All instances are in the context of a listing of the steps of cirumcision, which include periah and metzitzah. (You will notice commas in most cases.) In other words, no one has entered this ostensibly news-worthy term on any web page indexed by Google. --Eliyak T·C 04:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A detailed discussion about this part of the Brit milah procedure already exists on that page. It does not need or require its own article at this time. Please discuss on Talk:Brit milah -- Avi 04:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Further, I doubt Hitchens would pass as a reliable source on the procedure of Metzitzah. -- Avi 04:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Avi 12:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hi. Thanks for your copy-edit fixes on some of the WikiProject Comics articles, and the birth-date citations.

I need to make a request, though. As per WP:CITE, please don't change the Footnotes, References and External links subheads. "External links" lists ONLY "for further reading" sources — NOT sources used as references for the article. Also, when there is a list of both reference sources and footnoted citations, there is both a Footnotes subhead AND a References subhead. Thanks, --Tenebrae 03:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There are reasons to have both, as WP:CITE discusses. I can give one practical example in WikiProject Comics: Writing and art credits that are given for a dozen or two individual issues needn't have each one footnoted when, instead, there can be one Reference link to a database, such as Grand Comics Database and others, in which anyone can readily look up any issue in question. It helps to save clutter and needless extra work.
Hope this helps, and thanks again for your contributions. It's good to have people such as yourself (and myself, too, I think) who are willing to put the time and effort into proper formatting and punctuation and such! --Tenebrae 03:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dynamo5-1Pg1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dynamo5-1Pg1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dynamo5-1Pg11Pn2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dynamo5-1Pg11Pn2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

NYC meetup change of schedule

You've expressed an interest in the upcoming New York City Meetup for Saturday, November 3. I'd like to update you on an important change of schedule.

  • It's been agreed that we should have a 2-hour formal meeting period to start organizing meta:Wikimedia New York City, and this will be held at the Pacific Library (note this is different from the Brooklyn Central Library, which was discussed earlier) from 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM.

This will be in addition to the previously scheduled roving activities at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (this activity has also been cut short a bit) and at the Brooklyn Museum. For full details, see Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Ask any questions at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC. Thank you.--Pharos 21:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mitchell Olson AFD

As you are the page's creator, I thought there was probably some policy somewhere stating that you should be told that the article "Mitchell Olson" has been listed for Articles for Deletion. I couldn't find it (or one of them templates that does it automatically!), but here you go anyway! You can view this article's entry on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitchell Olson. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 20:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Meetup

Thanks for posting that meetup badge! Your drawings on your user page are top notch!! Phgao 13:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

King Taharqa

It appears he wasn't a King of Nubia per se, but an Egyptian Pharaoh of Nubian origin. See his article at Taharqa (Does that match the museum caption? I suppose it's possible there was more than one Taharqa...). Thanks for taking this.--Pharos 14:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You're familiar with Wikimedia Commons, right? Even if a photo can't fit in an article, it can (and should) still go on Commons in any case. And the longer and more detailed an article is, the more room it has for many photos. You can look at Commons:Category:Taharqa for other photos connected to him (and it seems someone else may have even uploaded a photo of this statuette before you). BTW, it wasn't really me who first suggested you take the photo (though I was involved in the conversation); it was User:Raul654 and I'm sure he'd like to see it too.--Pharos 00:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the organization of images on Commons is done by categories, rather than on gallery pages. So, you have to add [[Category:Whatever]] to the bottom of the individual image's page for whatever existing categories are appropriate. I have now added two categories to your image. I am surprised to discover that now we have three photos of this piece, yours (Image:11.3.07KingTaharqaShabti1ByLuigiNovi3.JPG, you should try a shorter name next time, maybe), as well as Image:Taharqa-Shabti BrooklynMuseum.png and Image:Shabti of King Taharqa.jpg. And what's interesting is they all look very different! (I guess this has something to do with the peculiar way alabaster catches light on its surface.)--Pharos 06:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see why you labeled it number "3" now, and I've categorized the other two for you also. Yeah, the names aren't too bad, though I think including the date in the name isn't really needed (including it in the page's description, is, though). The thing is, these aren't templates, they are categories. You just have to add the text [[Category:Whatever]] to the bottom of the image page. For example, this edit shows me adding [[Category:Nubian antiquities in the Brooklyn Museum]] to one of the images of Taharqa taken by someone else.--Pharos 17:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

"When are you going to step up to the plate and nominate yourself for admin?" asked the opposing attorney to the eyewitness. Bearian 20:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to start a nom for you, but it failed because you nominated yourself 2 years ago. I'll have to figure out how to do a second nomination. In the meanwhile, why don't you get involved at WP:RFA and "vote" a few times ON OTHER NOMINATIONS. Also, read all of the sub-pages about what to expect. There are instructions at WP:RFA/N. 16:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)
See also Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Bearian 19:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Bearian would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Bearian to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nightscream. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

For some reason, this links to your first self-nom. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. Then review Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nightscream 2. Please answer all three questions. Then get back to me. Bearian 20:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

See also User:Bearian/Standards. Bearian 21:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The voting has started. Remember, DO NOT VOTE FOR YOURSELF. Bearian 14:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You may cut and paste this template for the top of your user page, removing the nowiki tags:

{{Rfa-notice}} Bearian 14:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream,

When RfA participants evaluate a candidate for the tools, many will look back into the past to get a feel for that candidate's actions and temperament in his prior actions. This is not a formal requirement; rather it reflects the fact that RfA is an attempt by the community to find a consensus about whether an individual is ready to use the admin tools and is generally trusted. Having a negative in your past Wiki-ing is not a killer situation; rather it gives you the opportunity to demonstrate how you've dealt with negative issues, how you're dealing with them, and how you're apt to approach adminship going forward. Good luck! -- Cecropia 17:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nightscream. Please take a look at the (optional) question I just added to your RfA. My question makes no attempt to assess the good faith of the other party mentioned, who I realize has not been friendly to you in other Wikipedia interactions. EdJohnston 04:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Anything within Wikipedia-space is signalled by the Wikipedia:(page name) format in the page headers. Examples include Wikipedia:Village pump or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. They often involve discussions in which any Wikipedian can take part, which shows you have an in-depth knowledge and understanding of using Wikipedia, which is valued in any admin. All Wikiprojects are also classed as Wikipedia-space entries. :-) Lradrama 09:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Based on how the discussion is going, you will be an admin in a day or two. Avoid blocking vandals for a few days until you learn to distinguish real vandalism from innocent tests or sandboxing by newbies. Please read WP:VANDAL and WP:AIV before using the block button. Email or post on my talk page about how to do this. Best of luck! Bearian 15:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on this. Best of luck! Bearian 14:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep! Congratulations on your newfound powers! Now you can delete the Main Page and block Jimbo (not that I would recommend that, of course). For a more sensible first use of the buttons, the new admin school is just a click away. Have fun and congratulations! henrik•talk 18:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Alphabet Supes

Can you rescue this, or should it just be deleted? Bearian'sBooties 00:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

  • It seems to have been deleted, althouigh I thought this was a keeper. Bearian'sBooties 16:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Shermer

There was a missing </ref> tag and a misplaced fact tag. See this diff:[7]. Bearian 00:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

'The Real World'

I was adding lines to fix formatting issues, as the cast member tables were scrunched up and hard to read. Sorry for any problems. Wikisgmu (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Real World: Austin

Regarding this edit:

Your edit summary says that if a user has seen a cast member on a TV show, the TV show is the source. But, has MTV aired Gauntlet 3 yet? if not, then that show cannot be used as a source, and the {{fact}} tags should remain until a source is added. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Palisades Mall

I'm sorry I called the "urban legends" "crap" in the edit comment. Chill out. If you want to take rules so seriously, you can't take photos of the mall like yours in the first place. You can't CC license a photo if you don't have the license to use the likeness in that photo. Pyramid Mall Group requires property releases for photos of their malls, not to mention you need a 1 million dollar insurance policy and a written permit from management just to shoot the mall to begin with. Amateur and professional photography alike. That's original research though so feel free to remove this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MMX (talk • contribs) 05:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry in advance, as I really don't mean to carry this on or be uncivil (as I said earlier, I truly am sorry I referred to content in a disparaging way). You are 100% correct that you can take a photo from across the street. However, where the primary subject is the likeness of the mall and its logo, something which you have not secured license to, you cannot freely decide how to license the photo. See also Trade dress. Property releases and model releases are standard legal protections for both the photographer and subject. [8] Finally the "rules and regulations" posted near main entrances do list photography as a prohibited activity. But really, I just meant to illustrate that rules are often broken unknowingly. A better way to say what I said previously, in a future edit, would be to simply state the factual dispute and cite a counter-source, and I will be more considerate in the future. --MMX 22:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Jal Culluh

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jal Culluh, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Jal Culluh. Ejfetters 23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jal Culluh

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jal Culluh, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jal Culluh. Thank you. Ejfetters 07:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

IP blocks

Just a quick note since I've seen you only blocked once [9]: never block an IP indefinitely, if you are not 100% sure of qhat you are doing. IPs are shuffled regularly, and you most probably never know if that school will still have this IP in a few months, and the bored kid there will be long gone. We usually block IPs for vandalism for maximum 6 months (if the vandalism is endless, and starts again immediately after shorter blocks). For Schools, you might wish to consider {{schoolblock}} as your block reason. -- lucasbfr talk 10:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

John Harriman

You're right, it's a better photo. By all means upload that one if you like. However, wait three weeks and we may be able to snap a better one from Star Trek: Of Gods and Men! - Fayenatic (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Peters Cartridge Company

Do you mind, if it's not urgent, can I fix it later? Yes, it's a bit of a mess. Bearian 15:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Image:ParallaxComic.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:ParallaxComic.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:ParallaxComic.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:ParallaxComic.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Parallax image

The nutshell? What you uploaded is a case of major digital manipulation that pushes beyond "fair use".

Cropping would work to remove the inset. But that does mean losing, at the least, a leg of the creature. But that is within the spirit of "fair use".

So would desaturating or graying the inset. This about as far afield as the manips should go.

But removing a section and replacing it with what you think should be there goes beyond "fair use". Scanned or not, these images are not ours to rework, or retouch in that way. - J Greb (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright law does, period.
These are not are images. We do not have the right to alter them to any extent we see fit.
Cropping is one thing. That is taking a portion without altering the work.
Graying or desaturating non-focus elements is an extension of that. Arguments can be made doth ways about that alteration of the image. It's shaky at best since it is a direct change to the work.
Both of those fall within "fair use".
There is also the cut out option, which takes a bit more time and would be a variation of a crop. I didn't mention it above because, frankly, the two ways it would normally be applied are less than good for this image. The first would be to square cut the insert out, leaves an ugly white hole though. The second would be to remove the background from around the entirety of the figure, which merges into the background.
Thinking on that... let me post something over one of the orphans and see how it sets with you. - J Greb (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Please refer to Image:ParallaxComic2.jpg - J Greb (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

World's Finest

First of all, you are going to get a lot further with me by sending me somewhat less strident, impolite messages. It also makes me less inclines to want to editorially rip you a new one. So be polite, for your sake and my blood pressure, okey-doke, sunshine?
Moving on, that Superman and Batman are actually referred to as the Worlds Finest enough that they eventually had their own comic that ran for over forty years says to me that it isn't unencyclopedic to refer to them as such. Please feel free to check out the actual links for World's Finest to confirm this. That their current comic pairing doesn't call them this doesn't negate the moniker, and in fact reinforces it. That the Midnighter and Apollo have been cited as analogs for the Batman and Superman. As well, the very citation refers to the pairing of Batman and Superman as "the World's Finest" is undisputed. Lastly, THE Batman is the proper name for the character, and not the colloquial. Take a look at the actual Batman article and see this for yourself.
"Shoe-horning" would require imply that I am trying to add something to the article which isn't supported by citation. This clearly isn't the case. I will copyedit the Lead so that my adding it back in doesn't seem to be more in keeping with the supporting citation.
In the future, come to me with a problem before it apparently escalates enough that you feel the need to approach me the way you did. I don't respond well to rudeness. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me, and thanks for being more polite; it's a big plus for me. Allow me to cut right to your points:
Using "WF" - the article draws the connection - a fairly sizable one, I think - between Midnighter and Batman. The citation also draws a connection between the duo of Midnighter and Apollo with the pairing of Batman and Superman. As the latter pair have been repeatedly, citably and notably referred to as the World's Finest and the article actually exists entitled World's Finest discussing this pairing, it is appropriate to note it. Yes, the article is about the Midnighter, but since a number of parallels have been cited between his partnership with Apollo and that of Batman and Superman, even noting the titling of the Batman/Superman pairing as World's Finest, it behooves us to include it.
Using "the" Batman - It is also appropriate to note at the first mentioning the proper term of the character, and as Batman's 'formal title is The Batman, it's encyclopedic to note it. Subsequent mentions of the character don't require the definite article.
"Shoehorn" - I am aware of the proper definition of the term, Nightscream. What I don't understand is your contention that the article is so bloated that a properly cited reference and a definite article are going to cause the article to explode.
Also difficult to fathom is your inferred contention that if it is older, it has no relevance. I would submit that pairings like that of Midnighter and Apollo would never have been conceived has it not been for the existence of the World's Finest or the component members. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
WF is not an unwieldy term, as I will illustrate in an edit as soon as I am finished posting here (I'll subsequently provide a link for it here).
The Batman is the formal name used in the comics, the various television programs (live-action and animated) and product merchandised by DC Comics. References to the character initially being called the Batman still occurs in the comics (Nightwing, the GCPD mini-series, Batgirl: Year One. Batman: Year One, Batman One Million, etc.) Using a commonly referred to name is entirely appropriate, after the proper name is given. Other examples would be the Atom, the Green Arrow, etc. As well, common parlance is not an excuse for failing to use the proper name. For example, many people commonly refer to Spider-Man without with hyphen (Spiderman), which is entirely understandable, and entirely inaccurate. Should we use the non-hyphenated version simply because that is what is commonly used? Clearly, we cannot.
Shoehorn is the term you initially used, defining the metaphorical usage as "forcing something into a limited or tight space". You implied that the article was too full to allow for the usage, which I found puzzling. If I misinterpreted your usage of the term, accept my apology. Allow me to simplify my reasoning here (not intended as an insult, but an attempt at transparency):
1. Midnighter was inspired by the Batman character. As well, the Midnighter copies many of the traits of Batman.
2. Midnighter is partnered with Apollo, who has been cited as being an analog of Superman.
3. Batman and Superman are historically and citably known as the "World's Finest".
4. When this pairing is analogous as a reference point for M and A, it becomes notable. As there is a citation to that effect in the article, it becomes ever more so.
5. Therefore, noting the existence of the WF moniker used to describe the pairing of Batman and Superman - analogs from which Midnighter and Apollo were created and paired together - is significant and important.
I hope that explains my point better, Nightscream. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I rather disagree with your contention that 'World's Finest' is an "obscure nickname". A Google search uncovered over 160 results for "World's Finest", and almost all of them referred to Batman and Superman. In addition, the publication history of that particular branding of the DC hero pairing has run for over 40 years - hardly an obscure reference.
As we seem to not really be finding a resolution, perhaps we need to file an RfC regarding this point, and get some neutral input. thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
And if you showed pictures of Spider-Man or the Atom to that same random group on the street, they would identify them as "Spiderman" and Atom, so I would dare say that the argument is about as valid as my Google one; incidentally , it isn't a non-sequitur to note the predominant presence of one thing as an identifier for something, such as 'World's Finest; (which - again - is neither obscure nor non-pertinent), as we aren't really weighing hits against google-bombing and whatnot. You are a smart fellow, please don't insult either of us by playing coy as to my argument. While I am are aware you disagree with my argument, please don't pretend to not understand it; it wastes both our time.
My position remains unchanged. Unfortunately, you have not offered me compelling reasons why a derivative character of the Batman shouldn't refer to the correct name of the parent character. I can see a bit' of leeway in referring to Batman and Superman's relationship in comparison to that of Midnighter and Apollo in simply avoiding making the comparison so as to avoid the mention of the titled pairing of the DC characters. If you offer perhaps a more compelling argument to counter mine as to why we should avoid the long-term name of the Batman-Superman pairing, I am quite willing to listen. Of course, it will be far more difficult to dissuade me from "the Batman", as that is pretty cut and dried.
I suggested the RfC because I foresee that if we cannot agree, this will only go back and forth some more, and one of us is going to likely become impolite, and then it will get ugly. People will cry. Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanzaa will be spoiled. the might even be a great gnashing of teeth. ;) I suggest that an RfC allows us the opportunity to have our arguments - while they are still cogent and civil here - heard by a third party (or parties), who can weigh in and render a neutral decision not based on any personal bias. I think it is a fair next step in this process, as I don;t really see either of us budging off our present positions. If you file, I will support it, - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I will wait for you to file the RfC. Until then, I intend to support my edit in the article. Is there some reason why you are not inclined to submit the RfC? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am being a bit more paranoid than i need to be. If so, i apologize. As for the edit, i haven't added it as per the 'ideal' edit. If I understand your agreement, I will add it now, and we can set this aside? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Guy Aoki

An article that you have been involved in editing, Guy Aoki, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy Aoki. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Nightscream/Archive_3"