Misplaced Pages

User talk:Nightscream/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Nightscream Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:32, 20 April 2008 editNightscream (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,362 edits Edit.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:10, 1 January 2025 edit undoNightscream (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,362 edits Adding Archive 20 
(784 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
]
: March 17, 2005 - April 22, 2007
{{talkarchive}}
* '''Archive 1 (2005): March 5, 2005 - December 29, 2005'''
* : January 2, 2006 - January 18, 2007
* : January 18, 2007 - December 26, 2007
* : January 2, 2008 - December 31, 2008
* : January 2, 2009 - January 2, 2010
* : January 1, 2010 - December 29, 2010
* : January 2, 2011 - December 30, 2011
* : January 1, 2012 - December 31, 2012
* : January 2, 2013 - December 3, 2013
* : January 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014
* : January 1, 2015 - December 31, 2015
* : January 12, 2016 - December 24, 2016
* : January 1, 2017 - December 30, 2017
* : January 11, 2018 - December 31, 2018
* : January 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019
* : March 25, 2020 - December 27, 2020
* : January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021
* : January 12, 2022 - December 31, 2022
* : January 1, 2023 - December 31, 2023
* : January 10, 2023 - December 25, 2023


==Corey Clark== ==Wolverine: Stats==
] ] 05:36, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
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.] 03:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Here we go again. First, there is no mention of super human strength to avoid a flame war. Second, your examples prove your own argument wrong. Those Marvel Universes published in 2004 that you mentioned list Wolverine at a level 4. If you look in the appendix of those issues (even X-MEN 2004) level 4 correllates with low superhuman strength. Why are you not able to read that? Also in the Marvel Universe Master Edition 4 Wolverine's strength is listed as enhanced. Why can't you just read it? I gave you a mountain of evidence which is still on my site and all you had to do was cut and paste the text into the field on your browser (you can't just click it doesn't allow hot linking, you have to CUT AND PASTE). Contact the editors of the Marvel website and review the entries there where he is yet again listed as level 4. http://www.marvel.com/about/contact_us/email.htm. ] 23:01, 22 Jun 2005 (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.] 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 ] (]) 19:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


I did have this stuff available for you to actually look at on this site but since ''someone'' went and reported it I had to take it down.] 23:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
==Image tagging for Image:CoreyClark.jpg==
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages'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.


Here is a another image for you. Please look at the following entries from various comic books illustrating that the character has enhanced strength. They will save you much trouble or doing unnecessary revisions. The image bellow shows a feet of greater than the peak human range or Captain America, but less than the Superhuman Class 10 range of Spiderman. Spider man can lift a maximum of 10 tons (roughly 20,000 lbs.). He would snap these bonds easily. Captain America could not snap these bonds at all. Also in the old Marvel Universes in the 80's that said that Wolverine was a strong as any man of his hieght and wieght who engages in intense regular excersize, how many 150 year old men do you know of who can lift over 800 lbs? You see there were problems with those universes. There was no enhanced range at that time. Meaning that characters were not as strong as Spidey would sometimes (but not always) just get this "strong as any man of his hieght and wieght who engages in intense regular excersize" even if they could lift 2 tons. Another example was Sabretooth who was does definately have superhuman strength and in the marvel universe from 1986 it listed him as peak human. Yet in the new Wolverine2004 Universe it does put him at Level 4 and in the Master Edition Master Edition it lists him in the Enhanced Range. ] 22:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
* ]
* ]


(completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF1.JPG
This is an automated notice by ]. For assistance on the image use policy, see ]. 04:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


<table align="center">
Your recent edit to ] () was reverted by an '''automated bot''' that attempts to recognize and repair ] to Misplaced Pages 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. ''']''' for '''frequently asked questions''' about the bot and this warning. // ] 15:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
<tr><td>]</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center">''From Uncanny X-Men 111''<br>
</table>


Hi, got some info for you concerning Wolverine.
== Image:RupertSheldrake.jpg listed for deletion ==
http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF5.JPG
<div style="padding:5px; background-color:#E1F1DE;">'''Dear uploader:''' The media file you uploaded as ] has been listed for ] 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 Misplaced Pages by permission.''''' While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Misplaced Pages, this is in fact '''not''' the case. Please '''do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them''', because content on Misplaced Pages needs to be compatible with the ], which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our ] for more more information.
<table align="center">
<tr><td>]</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center">''From New X-Men: Mutant Academy 10''<br>
</table>


(completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF6.JPG
'''If you ''created'' this media file''' and want to use it on Misplaced Pages, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{tl|GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} to license it under the ], or {{tl|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the ] Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{tl|PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.


<table align="center">
'''If you ''did not create'' this media file''' but want to use it on Misplaced Pages, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from ] if you believe one of those ] rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and ].
<tr><td>]</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center">''From New Thunderbolts 6''<br>
</table>


1) His strength is listed as ENHANCED.
If you have any questions please ask at ]. Thank you. {{{2|<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>]<sup></span>]]</sup>&nbsp;<em style="font-size:10px;">20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)</em>
http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF1.JPG
20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)}}}</div><!-- Template:Idw-noncom -->
<table align="center">
<tr><td>]</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center">''Marvel Universe Master Edition 4''<br>
</table>


2) There were two editions that listed of the Marvel Universe in 2004 that had profiles of Wolverine. Marvel Universe X-Men 2004 actually contradicts itself by stating that Wolverine's strength is Level 4 (enhanced human through superhuman class 25) and then it states in words (directly copied from the old volume from 1986) that he is merely in top physical shape. Marvel Universe X-Men 2004 had a LOT of errors in it (such as reprinting a portion of the Deluxe Edition no. 14 from 1986 in describing his strength, and that edition listed a lot of characters with superhuman strength as merely being in peak physical condition). If you then look at the appendix it shows that level four includes strength anywhere from 800 lb to 25 tons (encapsulating 3 categories, enhanced human, superhuman class 10 and superhuman class 25). Level 3 is peak human. Captain America can only lift 800 lb under optimal conditions, and even then it is a great strain. Wolverine, with his metahuman stamina could pick up 800 lb and run the Boston Marathon with it, without getting tired. That is why he is considered enhanced. He has also demonstrated that he can lift more than 800 lbs.
==Pedro Zamora==
(completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF2.JPG
Hi I just wanted to thank you for all the work you did on the ] 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.] 00:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
<table align="center">
<tr><td>]</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center">''Marvel Universe Wolverine 2004''<br>
</table>
3) In the Marvel Universe Wolverine 2004 and on the Marvel Website, Wolverine is again listed as level 4. Level 4 covers enhanced humans (beings able to lift from the 800 lb to 2 ton range), Superhuman class 10 (beings able to lift from 2 tons to a max of 10 tons), and Superhuman class 25 (beings able to lift wieghts between 10 and 25 tons). So Wolverine is at the very bottom of level 4 (an enhanced human). In the comics there are several places that this is explained explicitly and I will scan those entries and show them to you if necessary.
(completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF3.JPG
<table align="center">
<tr><td>]</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center">''Marvel Universe Wolverine 2004''<br>
</table>


(completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF4.JPG
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Please accept this Barnstar of Diligence for exceptional perseverance in researching ]. Cheers, --] 00:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
|}


<table align="center">
==Sandman==
<tr><td>]</td></tr>
Hi--I'm not an administrator, but when a vandal ignores all warnings, I report them here . 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, ] 00:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
<tr><td align="center">''Marvel Universe Master Edition 2 appendix''<br>
</table>


4) Although Wolverine has had his adamantium back for several years now, if you look at the X-Men 2004 edition it mistakenly puts that he still has the bone claws. This was corrected in Wolverine 2004. This is another example of an error in that issue. Just because it says in that issue that he did not have adamantium does not mean he didn't have it. It means that the issue was rushed to be printed and not edited well. This was somewhat corrected in Wolverine 2004.
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 ]. 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. ] <small>] </small> 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. ] <small>] </small> 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, ] <small>] </small> 19:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


So essentially Wolverine is at the enhanced human level, which is equivelent to very low superhuman strength. He can lift around 800 lb to 1500 lb. That is the position of Marvel. The writers don't make a big deal out of it because he is in a class below Spiderman.
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. ] 19:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


(completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF7.JPG
== 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.] 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. ] 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


<table align="center">
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". ] 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
<tr><td>]</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center">''Marvel Website Official Listing of Wolverine's Abilities''<br>
</table>


5) Finally, this is from Marvel's website. Wolverine is on Level 4. Level 4 covers characters in the range of being able to lift 800 lb to 25 tons. That is 3 categories. Enhanced Human, Superhuman Class 10, and Superhuman Class 25. Wolverine is in the lowest category of the 3 being enhanced human. As you can see the statistics from the Master Edition still stand.
== 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. --] 04:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


] 04:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
== J.K. Woodward ==
Sure, no problem. This interview describes his process:
<blockquote>"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:


I have shown you specific marvel universe entries and panels explaining it this point. The character is described as enhanced, which in an intermediate level between superhuman and peak human. The first two volumes of the Universe stated that he was merely in peak physical condition, because the writers had not worked out an enhanced (intermediate) category yet.
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.
] 05:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
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.'"</blockquote>


Okay, I have just proven that it states in the Marvel Universe that he has enhanced strength, agility, and reflexes. I showed you the page where it says it. Then I showed you examples. You keep stating that there Marvel has always maintained that his strength is merely peak human. That is called a lie. You need to stop now. Myself and several others agree that what you are doing is vandalism. ] 18:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In the supplements for the ''Fallen Angel: To Serve In Heaven'' TPB from IDW, Woodward himself says,
<blockquote>"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."</blockquote>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! ] 12:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


This is why over-extending the "Superhuman Powers" sections is stupid. All it EVER does is lead to flame wars over tiny little insignificant details that NEVER get kept to in the comics. EVER. And that's not even COUNTING cross-media stuff.
==Kerry Washington==
Sure, seems obvious: 1. Better quality; 2. more flattering; and 3. three years more recent. --] 02:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:Without a doubt. --] 02:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


And I think many of those pics above are imagevios, possibly all the text ones. I'll tag them tomorrow and see what everyone else thinks... ] 22:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
==]==
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. ] 19:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


Actually, I reduced the amount of text in the entry. And what does "imagevios" mean? If you are suggesting they are fake you are definately wrong. You should check things out before you acuse people. Saves you trouble.] 22:56, 17 Mar 2005 (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. —] (] • ]) - 01:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


By the way these images were only posted on here for Nightscream. They aren't part of entries anywhere else and after he had the chance to read them I was planning on deleting them or allowing them to be deleted. I only added one small picture to the Wolverine entry. I am clearly in the right here and I have the documentation to prove it so you might want to avoid wasting your time. ] 22:56, 17 Mar 2005 (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.) ] 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC) By the way, remember that some people using this site are Christians and do not appreciate it when you take the Lord's name in vain. It is extremely disrespectful. ] 23:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Hi, Britney.
*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 -- , '']'', ], ]. "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"], ]. "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? ] 03:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


Let’s see if we can take this in order. First of all, the notion that there is no mention of superhuman strength in my version is false, an indication that you obviously didn’t read carefully. It’s archived, so look for the paragraph that begins with “Additionally, some readers believe that Wolverine's strength, agility, and reflexes are enhanced…” If you read that paragraph, you’ll see that I mentioned the very examples that were mentioned as possibly indicating superhuman strength on Wolvie’s part. So what if I didn’t mention every single detail, like those Stat Gauges? The point is, I addressed the debate by mentioning material that both sides point to. If you felt that the Stat Gauges were too important to be omitted, why not simply add that in? Isn’t that the whole point of Misplaced Pages? That each person contributes a little bit, so that the entry presents a more and more detailed picture? Instead, you simply go back and revert to the old version, which doesn’t contain ''any'' of the material on that issue. I have restored my version, and have added the points about the Stat Gauges.
::Those are sources for the ''population density''. I was asking about sources for the distinction you assert between "town" and "city".


Second, you claim that the lack of such a mention, if true, would cause a “flame war”. How do figure this? If two contributors disagree on the content of an entry, they should ‘’discuss’’ it, not engage in a flame war. Simply because you respond to any disagreement with accusations of "lying," ''vandalism,'' and intending to "antagonize" people—as if you somehow have been able to divine my intentions, exclude less nefarious motives on my part (like perhaps a sincere belief on my part that my contributions are valid)—while simultaneously admonishing others to be more careful with ''their'' language—does not mean that others are so cynical, and that they possess the intentions you ascribe to them. If the only response you see to such a disagreement is pejorative language, accusations, and flame wars, then that says far more about your own character and temperment than it does about the content of my contributions.
::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? ] 03:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


:First step is to move this discussion to the ]. If this is about content then it should be on the article discussion page where it belongs. It will also keep the things from being fragmented. Then progress might be made. - ]] <sup>]</sup> 07:15, 25 Jun 2005 (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 ], and ] is incorporated as a ]. Guttenberg is more densely populated, but Union City is the most densely populated city. The wording that had existed previously was <nowiki>"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 ] placing it at #2 in the state behind ].<ref name="Census"/>"</nowiki> 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." ] 04:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


:And make sure to sign your name on every discussion entry. - ]] <sup>]</sup> 08:06, 25 Jun 2005 (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? ] 04:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
*Appropriate sources have been added to the ] article; it's an oldie. Each state defines what a "city" is, and different definitions are used by each state, and the ] uses these definitions. See for data for "Union City city, New Jersey" (i.e., the City of Union City") and 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 ], whose population shot up to 530 as of the 2006 census estimate. ] 05:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


The entry is better the way it is because '''it doesn't say anything about him having enhanced or superhuman strength''' it merely states a few facts which are also stated in the Marvel Universe Wolverine 2004 and lets the reader draw thier own conclusion. Your entry has a ton of unnecessary information and is not NPOV. There is no need for you to explain to us what you think the opinions of some readers are regarding a comicbook characters powers. How do you know? Which readers? Did you conduct a statistical survey? Where can I look at the data? Seriously, this has gone on long enough and you need to find something more productive to do with your time. ] 8 July 2005 09:48 (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? ] 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. ] 15:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


The fact that the version you favor entry does not mention the issue over his strength is precisely why it is incomplete. Reference sources like Misplaced Pages should address such discrepancies. It is for this reason that I feel it may be useful to present the contradictory bits of evidence cited by different people when discussing whether he does or doesn't have enhanced strength, and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Your statement that your version somehow allows readers to do this, even though it doesn't even mention the issue at all, makes no sense. You also provide no evidence or elaboration on how my version is not NPOV. How exactly is it not NPOV to incorporate evidence that both sides present on the matter? My version does not slant the information toward either side, which is exactly what an NPOV is. Moreover, my version also has other information regarding his superhuman powers that has nothing to do with the strength issue, and it is not your place to decide for others whether it is "necessary" or not. That's for readers to decide, depending on their curiosity and their needs. Lastly, which readers advocate which position on the strength issue is unimportant. The only important thing is that I incorporated the information they pointed to in support of their position, for which a statistical survey is neither necessary nor relevant. The only important data are the sources that I cited, which you can most certainly look up. ] 7.8.05. 9:49am EST.
:I '''finally''' posted your images at my ] and my ]. Thanks again. ] 14:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Its NPOV because you are telling us what the opinions of readers are and implying which opinions are correct. Its a fictional comic book character it isn't necessary to site sources for the character's powers. My comment about a statistical survey was a play on words, which apparently went over your head. Several people have been reverting your editing. I am not alone on this one. ] 8 July 2005 16:30 (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. ] 10:56, 18 August 2007


Nowhere in my version do I imply which opinions are "correct." I merely present both sides of the issue, and cite the arguments by each side. Nowhere do I indicate that one is correct and one is incorrect. Your comment about a statistical survey was not a play on words; it was a manipulation. Statistics are usually used in regards to quantitative issues (that is, how many people believe this or that), when in fact, nowhere in my version do I ever allude to the percentage of people who subscribe to one explanation or the other. Bringing the issue of statistics up, therefore, was irrelevant, and referring to it as a "play on words" is at best, demonstrative that you do not understand yourself what that phrase means, and at worst, disengenous on your part. Shocking as it may be to you, I know that others have been reverting the entry. So what? Most of them employ the same sort of Straw Men, word manipulation and other fallacies that you do, as well as irrelevant insults and name-calling, none of which I tend to take very seriously. If you want to engage in a civil discussion in which I might see your point of view, you might consider abandoning those tactics, since they do nothing to lend credence to your position, much less convince me ] 7.8.05. 9:37pm EST.
==Snape edit==
I disagree with 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?). - ] ] 14:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:AS you recounted the tale, it came back to me. You are correct. Thanks. :) - ] ] 18:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


Several Wikipedians agree that your edit is innapropriate for the entry. I have explained to you in very explicit and civil terms why we have come to this conclusion. I have never insulted you, but you have been quite rude in your correspondence with me, which so far I have generously overlooked. As I said before I welcome any appropriate contribution you can make to that or any other article. People don't always agree with each other. Let's all try to be a little more mature about this matter as it is rather insignificant compared to the other activities in our lives.] 07:55, 12 July 2005 (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 ]. 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. ] 05:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


The statement that you have never insulted me, and that it is somehow I who has been rude to you, is clearly false to anyone who reads our exchanges. To date, you and others have accused me of deliberately trying to antagonize you, you have presumed to know what my motives are behing my actions and my position, you have distorted my words and made manipulative use of words to do this. The idea that I have somehow been rude to you is just flat-out untrue, as is the notion that it is somehow you who has been "civil." You seem to think that merely stating an idea or an accusation somehow lends credence to it. It doesn't. In order for any idea to hold up, you have to provide evidence/reasoning for it. You have not done this. You say I've been rude to you. Fine. Please point to where I have done this. You say that my version of the section does not show a NPOV because it implies which side of the dispute over Wolverine's strength is correct, and that I have omitted and distorted information for the other. Fine. Please point to where I have done this. I challenged you on this a short while ago, and you again stonewalled on the matter by refusing to respond. By contrast, I can point to information that reflects my statements regarding your behavior and mine. You allude to what I am supposedly thinking, you assert that I somehow need a dictionary in order to use the words I used in my recent post to you (as if there are any words in that post that one cannot know by heart), and so forth. You're saying those are not insults? How so? For your part, the only things to which you can point as supposed insults on my part are when I point out the logical fallacies you employ, which is clearly not an insult, but a reasonable description of your arguments. As far as the explanations you have given on why my edit is inappropriate, I respectfully disagree with them, and have explained why, and in detail. It should be left to the readers looking for information to decide how much information or detail they need/want. Not the aesthetics of individual posters. I don't myself don't care for the recent addition of the section Wolvie's costumes, as his costume has never been a signature trait of the character. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to unilaterally decide to delete it. Moreover, only one portion of my edit refers to the dispute over his strength. The rest covers other information that the version you favor does not, such as the limits of his healing factor, the fact that his hair also grow back, and greater detail on his senses and claws. Your only response is to argue that length of a section equates with whether it makes sense and other fallacies, and to attack me and my motives. ] Tue 7.12.05. 4:42am EST.
== Video Professor ==
Hello, Nightscream, Since you have edited the ] page before, I'd very much appreciate if you get involved in the current ] of the entry.
Your input would be very helpful. Thanks, ] 12:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


I've set up a section on ] and would appreciate your input. ] 13:26, July 14, 2005 (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)


Okay, the discussion has moved on a bit, please have a look and share your thoughts, cheers. ] 22:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Uhmmm you didn't answer my questions.] 03:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Please check ] before further editing ] for the next 24 hours. You are allowed only 3 reverts within 24 hours, otherwise you may be blocked from editing -- ] ] 14:32, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
At Wikia.com Do you know anyone I can ask? ] 05:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Since you have ignored attempts to reach a compromise, and insist on editing warring at ], I am citing you on ]. ] 14:37, July 17, 2005 (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 --] 03:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for violating the ] on ]. Please engage in dialogue with other editors and try to reach or accept a consensus view. --] 01:29, July 18, 2005 (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. ] 19:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


== No problemo ==
Sorry, I'm still reverting it. Your running to an admin won't change that, deary ] 00:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Your welcome, I see spacing issues everyday... so its not just you :-). For future reference send communications/comments to users on their User talk page (their discussion tab). I've moved your message there and my talk page is directly liked by Boy in my signature. Have a better one, and keep up the good work. - ]] <sup>]</sup> 14:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


== Pillock ==
: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? '']'' <small>] ]</small> 22:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed your comments on Thrydulf's page. I just wanted to point out that a pillock can also be an objectionable person, used to describe someone you are in disagreement with. I would also like to extend to you an apology. It seems I did not acquaint myself fully with the situation. I have asked Thrydulf to protect the page and I have also asked Netaholic if he will keep an eye on the page. I'm not sure how to solve the impasse, but it needs to be somehow. ] ] 08:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


I would also like to point out that never once have I reverted the page. ] ] 08:41, July 20, 2005 (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. ;) ] 03:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


I referenced Dictionary.com for the word, and they did not provide that other meaning. Sorry if my reference to it was not as accurate as it could've been. ] 7.20.05. 10:38am EST
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 ] 11:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


== Please stop using my user page to reply to other people. ==
Oh ok! This is awkward then. Goodbye! Have a nice life! :)] 17:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, I have several messages on my user page from you, and '''none''' of them are directed at me. - ] 15:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


== Your image uploads == == Step 3 ==
Nightscream, would you now please take another look at ], and please incorporate the suggestions which SoM, ScifiterX, and myself have given. Let us know on ] when you're satisfied with it. -- ] ] 16:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I notice that you have uploaded a number of images with captions and author marks built in. You may not be aware of Misplaced Pages's policy on the matter, but under ], Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. --] 06:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


==] article==
== ossie davis ==
Hi, I noticed that you made some drastic changes to the aforementioned article. However, by the looks of things, the work was only half done. You deleted a lot of information including his discography, filmography, categories, external links, fansites and references; all of which are important. I understand that the article was a bit long, but the proper thing to do was to make seperate pages and provide links from the main articles to these pages. Ive reverted most of your changes and have made new ones.
hi...i just opened up a discussion on the ossie davis talk page. cheers--] | ] 17:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
] 05:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


To tell the truth, I have no idea how to revert changes. However, I go to the history and find the article in its previous state. I then copy everything from there and then delete the current article and paste it there. I dont know if its the right thing to do (or the easiest), but hey, it works. Im just currently working on the ] article. I havent saved everything yet, though. Its giving me hell so I might leave some work for tomorrow, cause Im sleepy. By the way if I seemed bossy or harsh, I apologise.
==Image source problem with Image:CruzBacklit.jpg==
] 05:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
]
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the ] 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.


Everything alright? I looked at the article and seems to have worked out. In order to revert to an earlier version, what you do is click on the version you want from the history list... then edit that page and save with a comment explaining the reason for the revert and that version will become the article. - ]] <sup>]</sup> 14:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
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 {{Tl|GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the ]. If you believe the media meets the criteria at ], use a tag such as {{tlp|non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at ]. See ] for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.


== Wolverine ==
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 . '''Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged''', as described on ]. If the image is copyrighted under a ] (per ]) then '''the image will be deleted ] after 01:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)'''. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no source-notice --> '''<font color="red"><strong>→</strong></font>]<sup>&nbsp;♦&nbsp;]</sup>''' 01:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I would advise you to let it go for a while. You had the best intentions and were being bold in editing an article; but your insistance on additions despite reverts from multiple editors will not look good in arbitration. That is entirely seperate from wether your additions are notable or not. Give yourself some more time to get a feeling for editing; and that might help you create a Wolverine proposal later on which can get more support. - ]] <sup>]</sup> 06:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


:At least a few weeks... maybe till September sometime. Yeah in the meantime work around Misplaced Pages, and I'd suggest look at other Comic articles to see how they deal with inconsistent portrayals of abilities. Talk to users who have written comic articles (without mentioning Wolvering for a bit) and find out how they deal with inconsistency, and if they think its notable. To be honest its not notable to me, however I can see it as notable to someone interested in Comics, so a possible compromise is creating a sub-article on that. (For example on the ] article I created a lot of information on Themes in the film. Some people pointed out it was too much, and a little too interpretive, so I split it into ] and they can evolve on their own.)
== Your recent edit to ] ==
Just wanted to say, nice edit: placement, clarity, NPOV, the whole bit. --] 14:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


:As to "ScifiterX's slanderous attacks"... I try to look at things from the other persons perspective. Maybe he is a little defensive about the article, but it does seem clear he and others think you are dead wrong, and when you kept trying to put in your additions that pissed them off. So I actually blame you for their anger :"D, but as I said you were trying to improve the article, and that doesn't excuse their behavior. I'd say keep notes about the important stuff (especially Steve block being mislead) if you have to go to arbitration against ScifiterX. But keep in mind he got angry for a reason.
==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? - ] ] 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? - ] ] 04:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


:Hopefully the next time you will be more tactful (not pushing your edits on the article right away), and will have a solid argument for inclusion (or splitting) of some details based on comparisons to other Comic articles. Ultimately that's what I see making or breaking your edits, if other articles don't have this information, then neither should this one. - ]] <sup>]</sup> 16:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
== New York City Meetup ==
{| class="infobox" style="width:250px"
|-
| ]
|''']'''
<br/>Next: ''']'''
<br/>Last: ]
<br/><span class="noprint plainlinksneverexpand" style="white-space:nowrap; font-size:xx-small">This box: ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:80%;">•</span>&nbsp;]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:80%;">•</span>&nbsp;</span>
|}
The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a ] local chapter. Hope to see you there!--] 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


==Star Trek Pages==
==Speedy deletion of ]==
Just letting you know that there is a standard format that the trek pages have been organized into. When you add things please see how they are set up before making changes. As a rule: the "Quick Overview" line is a quick one sentence description of the episode (not a paragraph for the whole plot). Anything like credits, tidbits of info, and such are put under the "Trivia" section. Thanks. ] 08:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
] A tag has been placed on ], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages per ].


: I guess not, when I saw it it was bigger in size like (Star Trek pages) above. I reduced it to the smaller size. ] 08:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Under the ], articles that do not meet basic Misplaced Pages criteria may be deleted at any time. Please ], and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> 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.


::yeah thats cool. ] 10:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> 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. ] 23:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)<!-- Template:Db-csd-notice -->


== Re: ] == == User categorization ==
You were listed on the ] page as living in or being associated with New Jersey. As part of the ] project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit ] for instructions. ] 15:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
''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.
You didn't actually have to do an Afd on your duplicate article. You could have used a ] instead to point your article to the duplicate one instead. Redirects can be done by anyone and sense you were the author, no one would have objected. Just thought I'd let you know in case you weren't aware. -- ] 00:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


== ] ==
: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. --]&nbsp;<small>]</small>·<small>]</small> 02:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence that you added to the ] article: ''"(In fact, she merely removed a loose-fitting sweater to reveal tight shorts and a top underneath.)"'' This may be what happened (I wouldn't know), but this statement may be a violation of Misplaced Pages's ]. All the references that I added to the article regarding this incident referred to it as a "strip tease", so the article should reflect this. Thanks! ] 15:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


== Re: Sivana & the F4 ==
::See ] --]&nbsp;<small>]</small>·<small>]</small> 02:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Taken care of. Thanks for the expansion. --] 18:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


==Date links==
:::''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)''
This is regarding the article ]. Please note that according to ], "simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so." These should only be linked if they're part of a full date with day & month, as in ] ]. If they occure alone, just '''December''' or just '''2005''' or just '''December 2005''', they shouldn't be linked. --] (]) 11:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
:1, Usually, neither the month nor years are really relevant to the article. The article about a specific month or year will usually not provide any information relevant to, say ]. Full dates with day, month & year are linked so that user's individual date preferences (under ]) work.
:2, I think the best way to handle this right now is to contact the user friendly on his talk page, and explain that information on Misplaced Pages should be sourced and all the other explainations from the article's talk page (I guess he/she just didn't read that). If that doesn't help, you can add ] to his talk page and finally if all else fails use ].
:Hope that helps. Let me know if you need any other help. --] (]) 22:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
::1, I think the difference is that people reading the BC article might not know what ''Wizard'' is, therefor the link can be helpful. It's fair to assume everybody knows what May or December or 2005 is. ;-)
::2, even IPs have talk pages. For the one who keeps editing the article that's ]. And everybody who isn't an IP is a registered user, redlinks only indicate that they haven't written anything on their userpage, yet. (The user you where talking about is Inmytown, right? His talk page is ] and that's only a redlink because nobody has written him anything, yet.) So you can just go ahead and write on either of the two pages I linked here. --] (]) 10:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


{{talkarchive}}
::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 ], ], the ]], or modern ] 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.--]&nbsp;<small>]</small>·<small>]</small> 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 ]. 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.--]&nbsp;<small>]</small>·<small>]</small> 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. 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. --]&nbsp;<small>]</small>·<small>]</small> 04:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A detailed discussion about this part of the ] procedure already exists on that page. It does not need or require its own article at this time. Please discuss on ] -- ] 04:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:Further, I doubt Hitchens would pass as a ] on the procedure of Metzitzah. -- ] 04:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
::Thank you. -- ] 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 ], please don't change the Footnotes, References and External links subheads. "External links" lists ONLY "for further reading" sources &mdash; 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, --] 03:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

:There are reasons to have both, as ] 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! --] 03:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

==Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dynamo5-1Pg1.jpg==
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. 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 ] 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 ] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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 ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:No fair -->] 04:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
==Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dynamo5-1Pg11Pn2.jpg==
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. 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 ] 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 ] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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 ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:No fair -->] 04:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

== NYC meetup change of schedule ==
You've expressed an interest in the upcoming ]. 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 ], and this will be held at the (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 ]. Ask any questions at ]. Thank you.--] 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 "]" has been listed for ]. 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 ]. -- <small><font color="0000C8">THE</font> <font color="black">]</font> <font color="0000C8">]</font></small> 20:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

== Meetup ==
Thanks for posting that meetup badge! Your drawings on your user page are top notch!! ] 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 ] (Does that match the museum caption? I suppose it's possible there was more than one Taharqa...). Thanks for taking this.--] 14:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:You're familiar with ], 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 ] 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 ] and I'm sure he'd like to see it too.--] 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 <nowiki>]</nowiki> 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 (], you should try a shorter name next time, maybe), as well as ] and ]. 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.)--] 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 ]. You just have to add the text <nowiki>]</nowiki> to the bottom of the image page. For example, shows me adding <nowiki>]</nowiki> to one of the images of Taharqa taken by someone else.--] 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. ] 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 ] and "vote" a few times ON OTHER NOMINATIONS. Also, read all of the sub-pages about what to expect. There are instructions at ]. 16:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::See also ]. ] 19:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="rfa" style="margin: 0 5%; padding: 0 7px 7px 7px; background: #FFFAEF; border: 1px solid #999999; text-align: left; font-size:95%;">
'''] would like to nominate you to become an administrator.''' Please visit ] to see what this process entails, and then ] to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at ''']'''. 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.</div> For some reason, this links to your first self-nom. Please read ]. Then review ]. Please answer all three questions. Then get back to me. ] 20:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
:See also ]. ] 21:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
::The voting has started. Remember, DO NOT VOTE FOR YOURSELF. ] 14:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
:::You may cut and paste this template for the top of your user page, removing the nowiki tags:
<nowiki> {{Rfa-notice}} </nowiki> ] 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! -- ] 17:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
* For some perspective, read ] as to why ] is so important. ] 19:37, 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 Misplaced Pages interactions. ] 04:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Anything within Misplaced Pages-space is signalled by the ''Misplaced Pages:(page name)'' format in the page headers. Examples include ] or ]. They often involve discussions in which any Wikipedian can take part, which shows you have an in-depth knowledge and understanding of using Misplaced Pages, which is valued in any admin. All Wikiprojects are also classed as Misplaced Pages-space entries. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">]]</span> 09:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Based on how ], 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 ] and ] before using the block button. Email or post on my talk page about how to do this. Best of luck! ] 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 ] channel. Good luck! --] <small>]</small> 14:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
: Congrats on ]. Best of luck! ] 14:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep! Congratulations on your newfound powers! Now you can and ] (not that I would recommend that, of course). For a more sensible first use of the buttons, the ] is just a click away. Have fun and congratulations! <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 18:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

==]==
Can you rescue this, or should it just be deleted? ] 00:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
*It seems to have been deleted, althouigh I thought this was a keeper. ] 16:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

==]==
There was a missing <nowiki> </ref> </nowiki> tag and a misplaced fact tag. See this diff:. ] 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. ] (]) 18:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

==''The Real World: Austin''==
Regarding :

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 {{tl|fact}} tags should remain until a source is added. --] (]) 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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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 ]. Property releases and model releases are standard legal protections for both the photographer and subject. 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. <!--and I will sign comments--> --] 22:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

==Jal Culluh==
]
A ''']''' template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the ] process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's ], and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "]" and ]). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code><nowiki>{{dated prod}}</nowiki></code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ]. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if ] 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 {{tl|db-author}} to the top of ]. <!-- Template:PRODWarning --> ] 23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
==AfD nomination of ]==
]An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:adw --> ] 07:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

== IP blocks ==
Just a quick note since I've seen you only blocked once : 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 {{tl|schoolblock}} as your block reason. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 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 ]! - ] ] 14:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

==Duplicate ]==
]Hello, this is a message from ]. A tag has been placed on ], by {{#ifeq:{{{nom}}}|1|]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]),}} another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be ] from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because ] is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.<br><br>To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting ], please affix the template <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki> to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at ]. Feel free to contact the ] 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 ''' ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 00:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

::Please refer to ] - ] (]) 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? <br>
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 ] 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 ] and see this for yourself. <br>
"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. <br>
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. - ] ] 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 ].
:'''"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. - ] ] 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. - ] ] 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? - ] ] 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, - ] ] 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? - ] ] 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? - ] ] 09:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

==AfD nomination of ]==
]An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:adw --> ] (]) 15:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

== Happy New Year ==
Thanks for the message. ] (]) 15:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==
...to the next ]!

{| class="infobox" style="width:250px"
|-
| ]
|''']'''
<br/>Next: ''']'''
<br/>Last: ]
<br/><span class="noprint plainlinksneverexpand" style="white-space:nowrap; font-size:xx-small">This box: ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:80%;">•</span>&nbsp;]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:80%;">•</span>&nbsp;</span>
|}
In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the ].

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing ] issues (see the ]).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at ].<br /><small>This has been an automated delivery by ] (]) 01:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)</small>

==Vote for a post-meetup restaurant==
], so let's make it official. We'll do this via voting and everyone including anonymous voters, sockpuppets, and canvassed supporters is enfranchised. Voting irregularities and election fraud are encouraged as that would be really amusing in this instance. Please vote for whichever restaurant you would like to eat at given the information provided above and your own personal prejudices at ]. The prevailing restaurant will be called first for the reservation. If a reservation cannot be obtained at the winning restaurant, the runner-up restaurant will be called thus making this entire process pointless. Voting ends 24 hours after this timestamp (because I said so). ] (]) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

== Re: Wikilinking Cash Warren ==
He appears to be somebody of the cusp of notability, not some Joe Schmo off the street who happens to be engaged to Jessica Alba. If you disagree, just revert. :-) ]

==MfD nomination of ]==
], a page you created, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 14:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

==AfD nomination of ]==
I have nominated ], an article you created, for ]. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.<!-- Template:AFDWarning --> ] <small>and his otters</small> • <sup>(]•])</sup> 21:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

== RE: Rational Response Squad ==
In response to your query, my position is that they only had temporary notability -- not real long-term notability -- due to their "blasphemy challenge", unless there is something else to make them notable they aren't.

Have a nice day. --] (]) 01:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
::Look more closely at the policy cited, "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability.". --] (]) 02:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==
I've started working on it. More to come. ] (]) 17:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

==Corey Clark==
Hello Nightscream. I do think that the {{tl|self-published}} tag would have merit, as it ''is'' his own book. However, when getting information about a subject, a book or interview by the person is a good source, IMO. Hope this helps, ]|<sup>]</sup> 02:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

==Judd Winick==
Didn't mean to delete the Succession Boxes, just meant to delete the Green Arrow template, since he hasn't moved the character forward in any significant way. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==AfD nomination of Atheist and Agnostic Group==
]An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:adw --> ] (]) 05:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

==Deletion Review for ]==
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ] (]) 19:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

==MySpace==
*The fact that Pesta spoke with the site's founder, who personally made a promise to protect the profile. This is '''relevant''' for obvious reasons.
::But not properly sourced (can't be see otherwise we wouldn't have all that fuss over tom's exact status).

*Pesta's attempts to rectify the matter by contacting customer service. This is relevant because it establishes that the deletion was not a mistake, and that proper channels were attempted before it became a public matter.
::The quality of myspace's customer service has nothing to do with religious descrimination

*A petition that Pesta circulated, and a comment by a Harvard Law chaplain on the matter. This is relevant because it establishes the opinions of others on the matter, including a prominent Ivy League figure who may not be biased by a direct affiliation with the group (given that he's a chaplain, and the group is an atheist one).

::Pesta does work in academia. Far from imposible that they know each other. In any case I would tend to argue that the opinions of someone who actualy deals with IT would be more relivant.

*The new profile that Pesta has. This is relevant as an external link for the same reason that External links in general are a necessary part of any WP article. They allow readers to read Pesta's comments, as well as allow skeptics to decide if his position has merit (since they may conclude that the fact that he now has another MySpace profile mitigates his allegations).

::Err we do not include external links in the flow of the article text.

Which of these things would you argue is not relevant to the matter?

::The matter isn't really relivant. None of the above appears in a reliable source thus has no place in the article.

As for magnitude of the event ] is smaller than myspace and the current Muhammad image fuss is bigger than what we are talking about. Does get mentioned in the ] article.] 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==
AFDs are generally left up to debate for five days. At the end of that time, some other admin will handle it (there are people who go through processing these on a regular basis). It would generally be considered bad form to close your own noms.--] (]) 20:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

== Edit summary ==
] Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours {{#if:Betsy Ross House|to the article ]}}{{#if:| <!-- oldid for diff: {{{2}}}-->}} has an ] that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use ] for any tests you may want to do. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Wrongsummary1 -->

== ClanDestine image ==

The thing is I replaced it due to a lot of the same reasons. In my opinion the original image '''is''' just slightly clearer. As for the green around Imp, you're nor going to get an image of that gold foil cover that doesn't have some discolourization. In that respect I think the barely noticible green around Imp is better than the massive amounts of pink discolourization around her and the rest of the characters in the second cover image. The over all colour of the first image is also truer to the gold of the real life cover as opposed to the yellowish-orange of the second cover which looks nothing like the cover's real life gold foil.

I don't have a scanner, but if you can get a better image that addresses my concerns, I'm more than willing to compromize. I don't really want an edit war either. :) ] (]) 17:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

::I didn't argue against the black smuges. I simply stated what I considered to be my concerns about your image. As for you're not believing that I would use a true to life arguement, why? I honestly feel that its of primary importance to have cover images that reflect how the cover actually was -- as much as that is possible. Why shouldn't that be something to strive for?

::The Image now being used is fine, so there will be no more arguements from me. :) ] (]) 18:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

==New mailing list==
There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the ] (list: ]). Please consider joining it! ''']''' '''<small>]</small>''' 21:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

==My edits==
Hello, I got your warning for the second time (my apologies) about the edit to ]. I got that bit about the R/L confusion being Japanese and not Chinese from Misplaced Pages's own ] page, just 2 let u no. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Chris Rock==
Saw and tried to address your questions about Rock's "Comedic Style." Here's my entry to the discussion page: "Excellent point; I tried to clarify what the original author appears to have meant -- that becoming famous obliged Rock to fill an 'ethnic spokesperson' role with which he was uncomfortable; it's a point I've heard Rock discuss in interviews, and one I've heard fellow standup David Chappelle make as well." Does that solve it, do you think? ] (]) 00:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:Clarified, verified, sourced. ] (]) 10:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

==You are invited!==
{| class="infobox" style="width:250px"
|-
| ]
|''']'''
<br/>Next: ''']'''
<br/>Last: ]
<br/><span class="noprint plainlinksneverexpand" style="white-space:nowrap; font-size:xx-small">This box: ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:80%;">•</span>&nbsp;]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:80%;">•</span>&nbsp;</span>
|}
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to ] activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the ]).

Well also make preparations for our exciting ''''']''''' event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at ].

You're also invited to subscribe to the public , which is a great way to receive timely updates.<br /><small>This has been an automated delivery because you were on ]. ] (]) 03:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)</small>

== Chris Rock ==
The truth is always appropriate. --] (]) 05:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

== re: ] ==

The 'box is fixed. And I see what the problem was, that 'box is designed to not use the <nowiki>]</nowiki> syntax. What you would need to put in is:
*The file name (name and extension) as the "Img" parameter;
*The caption as "Img_capt"; and
*The desired output size as "Img_size".
The 'box is set up to default to 220px, and while I didn't check, it is possible that it's set up to cap the image at that as well.

And just a side note... using the album cover runs counter to fair use with bios of living people. Unless there's a very, very good reason for it.

- ] (]) 22:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

==]==
It was a gay newspaper in South Florda, it was known as TWN, not sure if it stood for something in not. I uncovered a file I had on Pedro when I worked for Congress that was full of stuff on him. articles, photos, legal documents. Going through it all.. I maybe re-writing some stuff in his article based on what I find. I have been looking for this file for ages, I knew I had it somewhere, trying to find the last picture taken of Pedro a few days before he died. I think it would be important to show in the article, what AIDS can do to someone. ] (]) 00:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
* No, I only have the article not the whole paper. I 'll ask around to see if someone remembers what it stood for.] (]) 03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
**THE WEEKLY NEWS - TWN ] (]) 03:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

== sorry ==

hi just wanted to apologise about my attitube i was just a bit annoyed u had blocked the ip. also i think i should have phrased my accusation that the aticle was wrong was inaccutate what i should have said is that the article was slightly miss leading as from my interpretation and feel free to disagree they are are also trying to get the attention of the device to steal it as well as the art. Once again i apologise for the attitude however your point about my fellows deserving it does sound like a collective punish ment however i feel that this is your decision and i wish you all the best. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Meet up==
It was good to see you again! Do you know when you are going to upload the video? Thanks for doing that. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 23:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
:Hey - I've been off-line and just saw your note. If you need uploading, let me know - although I'm out visiting my family and my access to a computer is limited. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 05:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

==Deletion avoidance==

Such activity is explicitly prohibited by Misplaced Pages. For an example of a MfD I placed pointing this out less than one week ago, see ]. Also, if this user is creating new users to do this, it is also in violation of ] and should be brought up to ]. Especially note ], ], and ] for rationales why this stuff should be deleted from Misplaced Pages.

If I were you, I would place the ] speedy deletion tags on all the offending pages. If the author removes them, bring them up immediately to ]. If you have been involved with direct conflicts with this user, don't delete the content yourself. Let an "uninvolved" administrator do it so you don't mired in an unnecessary fight.] (]) 15:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

::I looked over your ]. It looks like that the user wasn't starting new user accounts but instead was just listing them under their user-subpage in defiance of ]. If such is the case, it is not sockpuppetry per se. I commented at the sockpuppetry case to that effect. You may wish to close the case so as to not cause undue confusion. ] (]) 18:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

::Also, I note that ] has some weird wording that confused ] to the tune of user-protected content. There is a little bit of latitude given users to keep content for ''improvement'' in their user space. Say, for example, that an article on a famous corporation is deleted because it is an advert. It is perfectly acceptable to sandbox this content as a subpage of your user account to try to improve it to the standards necessary for keeping it included in the encyclopedia. What is ''not'' allowed is for someone to keep deleted material at their user page for an extended period of time as a way of circumventing deletion discussions. That's why things can get weird. If an uninvolved administrator who isn't aware of this distinction doesn't come around after a while, you might just want to make a wholesale ] for the entire lot (similar to ]) so that you don't have to worry about this anymore. Sorry this is so complicated. Misplaced Pages navigation through policy pages can be a nightmare. ] (]) 18:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
:::] - none of those users exist, so I've closed the case. ]] 18:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
::::No problem. SA gives good advice above about SSPs. ]] 18:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

== Tagging user sub pages for deletion ==

hell, why are you doing this? Usually we grant some leeway to user sub pages. As these are not in article space, it would be better to MfD.]] 20:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
:See what I mean about people not understanding? In any case, there are two issues here:
:#Improving content is fine. People should be given leeway to use some deleted content to improve an article in a sandbox for eventual posting back to article space.
:#Placing content in a user subpage to subvert a deletion discussion is not okay and is strictly forbidden by guidelines and policy.
:Administrators have to use their better judgment to determine whether the first or second case is happening. MfDing may be appropriate, but it looks, in my humble opinon, like the user who is perpetrating this is not actively improving the content but is instead creating a ] to keep favorite articles that were deleted according to proper deletion discussions still on Misplaced Pages. Such "underground keeps" are not allowed. YMMV. ] (]) 20:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

==Too many administrators not knowing deletion policy!==

Yikes! So, I listed the lot of them at MfD for you ]. Give it a week, they should be gone. If someone gives you grief, tell them to look at the article histories. Clearly the user is not interested in improving the articles for eventual reintegration into article space. Cheers, ] (]) 22:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

:Feel free to comment there. I'd like to read your side of the story. ] (]) 18:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

== Photos and Video from the Meetup ==

"Upload file" on Wikimedia Commons is under the ''participate'' box in the left hand menu there (or you can just click on ]).

For the videos, the best solution at this point would be sending them to my e-mail through http://www.sendthisfile.com/ (no size limits there!). Then, I'll make the edits and upload them to the ] myself. Thanks.--] (]) 23:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

== Your edits to Ultimates ==

Hello.Your recent edits to ultimates removed a number of items of cited real world information. Please revert or re-edit to include that material, as otherwise, it constitutes blanking. real world content is preferable to lengthy summaries, and while it appears you shortenedthe summaries, you seem to have done a great deal of that by removing citations, which is a problem. ] (]) 13:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

:(reply from my talk page)
:It comes to to citing the magazines by their legal title, which is the indecia. There has been a degree of static over this with some series though - the original ''Thor'', ''Iron Man'', and ''X-Men'' runs not having the cover adjectives and the change of some series to drop "The", such as ''The Avengers'' and ''The Defenders'', when they went through a renumbering.
:As for referencing the cover title, and the fan/common usage of it, yes, it should be mentioned in the intros. Same, or at least similar, situations exist with ] and ]. The leads there start with the indecia title and explain why the article uses a different name. The difference with ''Ultimates'' being 1) Misplaced Pages naming convention to ''not'' use "The" unless it is part of the official/legal title of a work; and 2) the Countdown series can be said to use the semi-official titles for clarity. - ] (]) 16:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

:Nevermind, I did it myself. ] (]) 17:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

== Attempt to set things straight about wrongful allegations ==

Nightscream:

I Received your message dated March 5th @6:51UTC regarding my "ALLEGED" vandalisim
of Rob Schneider page, However the ONLY thing that i did was Remove the date of death (2 March, 2008) that had recently been added since he is NOT dead. If you compare the edit before me to my edit you will see that the date was the ONLY thing i modified The IP address that was used to post the WRONG information is "165.123.139.116" which traces back to "dhcp0634.nic.resnet.group.upenn.edu"

BTW a few excerpts that you might want to look into: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." '''"If a user treats situations which are NOT clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by ''alienating'' or ''driving away'' potential editors."'''

Please Remove any Vandalisim marks on my IP address and contact me if you have any other questions.
Thank you. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Nightscream: Thank you for helping helping set things straight, Apparently i removed the error right after it was introduced so it seemed that i had done it however it is cleared up now. THANKS FOR YOUR HELP!! New wiki user ] (]) 06:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

== Thanks for work on Ultimates ==

A thank you for your work on the Ultimates articles! There's still a lot more to do and hopefully more editors will get involved. ] (]) 02:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

==Name==
'']''? ] (]) 13:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you named after ] (]) 20:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

==Coral Smith article==
Hello Nightscream! You've already blocked me unjustifiably so, causing me to have to get another admin involved in order to undo your ban here . This led to you making a faulty accusation here that I had added something into the article that I didn't, yet you tell ''me'' to read clearly when you're the one who didn't read clearly what I actually wrote. When I reverted that and corrected you about it (very civily) here , you came back and came up with yet a new reason to revert it while leaving a particularly incivil message in your edit summary right here. You commented on my talk page that you don't believe you're quibbling about this. I consider it quibbling to become so uncivil over edits of this nature. I also consider it particularly hypocritical of you to say "Stop reverting it, and stop edit warring with me" while reverting back the edit as you did here . Note: You've now reverted that edit twice to the one time I've reverted it.

As for your objection that Real World/Road Rules Challenge is not a spin-off of The Real World and Road Rules, I have provided a source, despite the fact that I think the name of the show is a blatant indicator that The Real World/Road Rules Challenge is a spin-off of both shows. ] (]) 06:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream, judging by your reply and revert despite my sourcing of the information, we obviously need a third party to step in so I've informed MaxSem here . Feel free to comment there, but I'm going to move on and just wait for his take on it ] (]) 06:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

MaxSem says we better go to dispute resolution or something. Haha! He's like I am not getting involved with all this! haha! So much for that. Look, I don't know why I care so much about it. If having that edit means that much to you, I give up. What I won't give up on tho is figuring out how to be your friend and get on good terms with you Mr. Man ;) ] (]) 08:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to involve yourself in this discussion on the Mediation Cabal page . I certainly do hope tensions from a day ago have cooled down and we can now discuss this edit disagreement in a civil fashion. I have provided my personal reasons for why I believe Real World/Road Rules Challenge spinned off from both shows and you're free to provide yours if you want. Thank you! ] (]) 20:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

==Your note==
Hi Nightscream, that source seems to be a blog (i.e. self-published), which isn't allowed unless the author is an established expert in the field who has previously had his work in that field published by a reliable third-party publication. See ]. The onus would be on the person wanting to use the source to show that that was the case. Hope this helps. <font color="Brown">]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">]</font><font color="Light green">]</font></sup></small> 17:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

:Hi, just a quick update. I posted this reference since it’s both online and have several references for further research. I could of course give references to several books claiming the same fact, but these facts would be less transparent to check and harder for others to verify. For instance, a very credible source would be "Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies" (Manchester University Press, 1975)... Or you can simply link to one of the many websites refering the same fact.... Such as the link i provided, or even this one: http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html. Best regards, Øyvind.... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==MySpace==
I can't look at your drawings because I'm not on Myspace. Maybe one day I'll get into it. Thanks.--] (]) 00:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
==]==
Could you please look over the article and give your imput in the AFD. ] (]) 20:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
:We obviously disagree. I have gone over the article over and over and that is why I have placed so many in-line citiations, so that no one could claim that the article was baised. I only stated the facts with a nuetral point of view as I have done with all my edits. I see nothing wrong with working on articles of which a person is an expert on as long as it is based on verifiable facts. I have no ill-will toward you and I respect your right to disagree with my position.. But 9 months ago you felt the article should be included and now because I have written the article, you think it should be removed.. You should decide based on the merits of the articles and its references not on what you think should be or not be wikipedia policy. ] (]) 04:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

==Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study==
Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Misplaced Pages. Previously, Misplaced Pages started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Misplaced Pages editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Misplaced Pages, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or ]. Thanks. ] (]) 02:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

==Re: Reliable sources for BLP's==
Hi, In order to keep the discussion in one place, I've replied to your question ]. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 19:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

==Re: BicMac18 Sock==
I put in the Checkuser request . It turns out that the user is known for jumping from account to account and makes the same types of edits to the same pages.]] 02:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

==Assistance==
I'd like to help settle the disagreement between yourself, BicMacDad18 and Gwandoya. If you're willing to take my assistance, please let me know. Cheers! ] (]) 00:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

==Are you joking?==
Dude how can you say that I vandalized "rational response squad" watch any of their videos they have no respect for anyone of relgion. They constantly put out hate speech and if I dont put that in wikipedi THE ENCYCLOPEDIA then I am not being fair to anyone. We report the holocaust,lynchimg,and the China-Tibet riots on this damned website so why cant I put up simple facts. They are a hate group you cant deny that. I did not vandalize that page. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Well I see that you're evenhanded. Looking at the post above, I see that you are trying to play fair and minimal in both sides of the Atheist-Theist debate. I did not edit Kirk Cameron's article to be nonfactual. I did so because I felt it did not accurately reflect the event. I see that you have a tendency to pare down every article regarding this conflict to bare-bones. I agree with this strategy. And to whacko guy above me, Atheists are not a hate group, they are simply trying to help the world see how much better it could be without religion, like Christianity. Also there is a "D" where a "C" should be in your new edit. ] 22:15, 9 April 2008
==Unblocking access==
I'm Tarnya Dunning from Telstra. I tried to create a user account today but discovered that my IP address is blocked (202.12.144.21). I believe that it has been blocked by you and I seek your assistance in removing this block. My purpose is to contribute to the Telstra-related pages by providing updated information via the discussion pages. T.dunning@team.telstra.com <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Thank you for unblocking access to the Telstra-related sites. Tarnya Dunning <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Fair use rationale for ]==
Thanks for uploading or contributing to ''']'''. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to ] and edit it to include a ].

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no fair use rationale-notice --> ] (]) 12:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
==RDR vs. Rowling==
You added some good material, but the proper place to put it is in ]. Thanks. <b>]]<font color="#00b">]</font></b> 06:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

== Expelled ==
Hey, thanks for the offer, I might take you up on that. BTW, thanks for stepping in. '''''] <sup>]</sup>/]''''' 00:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream, are you aware that I've been here for two years? You didn't link a diff on my page, but assuming you were referring to the sentence I removed earlier today from the overview, that was discussed on the talk page and in the edit summary. If you disagree with the reasoning, please feel free to discuss on the talk page, but otherwise comments or templates on my talk page probably aren't necessary. Thanks, ] (]) 01:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:Did I remove something from the talk page? If I did it was only accidental. I don't see that I did though; possibly you've mixed me up with someone else? ] (]) 03:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
::Ah, no problem then, that would explain it. Thanks for checking again. ] (]) 04:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Be a little more careful with sources - As far as I can tell, box office mojo only goes back to 1999 or so, and thus reallyc an't be used to talk about "having the most theatres" at the opening, or other absolute values like that. The New Scientist article (ref name=NewScientist12April2008 DOES say that "For starters, the film will open on 1000 screens in the US, a lot for a niche documentary. Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 opened on 870 screens, while Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth opened on just four". So there's something to be said there, aye, but you need to watch your source's limits. Anyway, do you REALLY think Expelled beat out the opening of those old Beatles documentaries? Or even the Rolling Stone ones? ] (]) 04:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:Um... I don't follow your question about why a site that has info 1999-present wouldn't have information about a 2004 film. By the way, I really really hate the word assert. Oh, and I'm exhausted and slightly drunk. That obvious yet? Night, laddo! ] (]) 04:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:10, 1 January 2025

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nightscream. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Wolverine: Stats

Meelar (talk) 05:36, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC) Here we go again. First, there is no mention of super human strength to avoid a flame war. Second, your examples prove your own argument wrong. Those Marvel Universes published in 2004 that you mentioned list Wolverine at a level 4. If you look in the appendix of those issues (even X-MEN 2004) level 4 correllates with low superhuman strength. Why are you not able to read that? Also in the Marvel Universe Master Edition 4 Wolverine's strength is listed as enhanced. Why can't you just read it? I gave you a mountain of evidence which is still on my site and all you had to do was cut and paste the text into the field on your browser (you can't just click it doesn't allow hot linking, you have to CUT AND PASTE). Contact the editors of the Marvel website and review the entries there where he is yet again listed as level 4. http://www.marvel.com/about/contact_us/email.htm. Britney Spears 23:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did have this stuff available for you to actually look at on this site but since someone went and reported it I had to take it down.Britney Spears 23:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is a another image for you. Please look at the following entries from various comic books illustrating that the character has enhanced strength. They will save you much trouble or doing unnecessary revisions. The image bellow shows a feet of greater than the peak human range or Captain America, but less than the Superhuman Class 10 range of Spiderman. Spider man can lift a maximum of 10 tons (roughly 20,000 lbs.). He would snap these bonds easily. Captain America could not snap these bonds at all. Also in the old Marvel Universes in the 80's that said that Wolverine was a strong as any man of his hieght and wieght who engages in intense regular excersize, how many 150 year old men do you know of who can lift over 800 lbs? You see there were problems with those universes. There was no enhanced range at that time. Meaning that characters were not as strong as Spidey would sometimes (but not always) just get this "strong as any man of his hieght and wieght who engages in intense regular excersize" even if they could lift 2 tons. Another example was Sabretooth who was does definately have superhuman strength and in the marvel universe from 1986 it listed him as peak human. Yet in the new Wolverine2004 Universe it does put him at Level 4 and in the Master Edition Master Edition it lists him in the Enhanced Range. Britney Spears 22:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF1.JPG

File:Seelink.JPG
From Uncanny X-Men 111

Hi, got some info for you concerning Wolverine. http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF5.JPG

File:Seelink.JPG
From New X-Men: Mutant Academy 10

(completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF6.JPG

File:See link.JPG
From New Thunderbolts 6

1) His strength is listed as ENHANCED. http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF1.JPG

File:Seelink.JPG
Marvel Universe Master Edition 4

2) There were two editions that listed of the Marvel Universe in 2004 that had profiles of Wolverine. Marvel Universe X-Men 2004 actually contradicts itself by stating that Wolverine's strength is Level 4 (enhanced human through superhuman class 25) and then it states in words (directly copied from the old volume from 1986) that he is merely in top physical shape. Marvel Universe X-Men 2004 had a LOT of errors in it (such as reprinting a portion of the Deluxe Edition no. 14 from 1986 in describing his strength, and that edition listed a lot of characters with superhuman strength as merely being in peak physical condition). If you then look at the appendix it shows that level four includes strength anywhere from 800 lb to 25 tons (encapsulating 3 categories, enhanced human, superhuman class 10 and superhuman class 25). Level 3 is peak human. Captain America can only lift 800 lb under optimal conditions, and even then it is a great strain. Wolverine, with his metahuman stamina could pick up 800 lb and run the Boston Marathon with it, without getting tired. That is why he is considered enhanced. He has also demonstrated that he can lift more than 800 lbs. (completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF2.JPG

File:Seelink.JPG
Marvel Universe Wolverine 2004

3) In the Marvel Universe Wolverine 2004 and on the Marvel Website, Wolverine is again listed as level 4. Level 4 covers enhanced humans (beings able to lift from the 800 lb to 2 ton range), Superhuman class 10 (beings able to lift from 2 tons to a max of 10 tons), and Superhuman class 25 (beings able to lift wieghts between 10 and 25 tons). So Wolverine is at the very bottom of level 4 (an enhanced human). In the comics there are several places that this is explained explicitly and I will scan those entries and show them to you if necessary. (completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF3.JPG

File:Seelink.JPG
Marvel Universe Wolverine 2004

(completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF4.JPG

File:See link.JPG
Marvel Universe Master Edition 2 appendix

4) Although Wolverine has had his adamantium back for several years now, if you look at the X-Men 2004 edition it mistakenly puts that he still has the bone claws. This was corrected in Wolverine 2004. This is another example of an error in that issue. Just because it says in that issue that he did not have adamantium does not mean he didn't have it. It means that the issue was rushed to be printed and not edited well. This was somewhat corrected in Wolverine 2004.

So essentially Wolverine is at the enhanced human level, which is equivelent to very low superhuman strength. He can lift around 800 lb to 1500 lb. That is the position of Marvel. The writers don't make a big deal out of it because he is in a class below Spiderman.

(completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF7.JPG

File:See link.JPG
Marvel Website Official Listing of Wolverine's Abilities

5) Finally, this is from Marvel's website. Wolverine is on Level 4. Level 4 covers characters in the range of being able to lift 800 lb to 25 tons. That is 3 categories. Enhanced Human, Superhuman Class 10, and Superhuman Class 25. Wolverine is in the lowest category of the 3 being enhanced human. As you can see the statistics from the Master Edition still stand.

Britney Spears 04:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have shown you specific marvel universe entries and panels explaining it this point. The character is described as enhanced, which in an intermediate level between superhuman and peak human. The first two volumes of the Universe stated that he was merely in peak physical condition, because the writers had not worked out an enhanced (intermediate) category yet. Britney Spears 05:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have just proven that it states in the Marvel Universe that he has enhanced strength, agility, and reflexes. I showed you the page where it says it. Then I showed you examples. You keep stating that there Marvel has always maintained that his strength is merely peak human. That is called a lie. You need to stop now. Myself and several others agree that what you are doing is vandalism. Britney Spears 18:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is why over-extending the "Superhuman Powers" sections is stupid. All it EVER does is lead to flame wars over tiny little insignificant details that NEVER get kept to in the comics. EVER. And that's not even COUNTING cross-media stuff.

And I think many of those pics above are imagevios, possibly all the text ones. I'll tag them tomorrow and see what everyone else thinks... SoM 22:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I reduced the amount of text in the entry. And what does "imagevios" mean? If you are suggesting they are fake you are definately wrong. You should check things out before you acuse people. Saves you trouble.Britney Spears 22:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way these images were only posted on here for Nightscream. They aren't part of entries anywhere else and after he had the chance to read them I was planning on deleting them or allowing them to be deleted. I only added one small picture to the Wolverine entry. I am clearly in the right here and I have the documentation to prove it so you might want to avoid wasting your time. Britney Spears 22:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, remember that some people using this site are Christians and do not appreciate it when you take the Lord's name in vain. It is extremely disrespectful. Britney Spears 23:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Britney.

Let’s see if we can take this in order. First of all, the notion that there is no mention of superhuman strength in my version is false, an indication that you obviously didn’t read carefully. It’s archived, so look for the paragraph that begins with “Additionally, some readers believe that Wolverine's strength, agility, and reflexes are enhanced…” If you read that paragraph, you’ll see that I mentioned the very examples that were mentioned as possibly indicating superhuman strength on Wolvie’s part. So what if I didn’t mention every single detail, like those Stat Gauges? The point is, I addressed the debate by mentioning material that both sides point to. If you felt that the Stat Gauges were too important to be omitted, why not simply add that in? Isn’t that the whole point of Misplaced Pages? That each person contributes a little bit, so that the entry presents a more and more detailed picture? Instead, you simply go back and revert to the old version, which doesn’t contain any of the material on that issue. I have restored my version, and have added the points about the Stat Gauges.

Second, you claim that the lack of such a mention, if true, would cause a “flame war”. How do figure this? If two contributors disagree on the content of an entry, they should ‘’discuss’’ it, not engage in a flame war. Simply because you respond to any disagreement with accusations of "lying," vandalism, and intending to "antagonize" people—as if you somehow have been able to divine my intentions, exclude less nefarious motives on my part (like perhaps a sincere belief on my part that my contributions are valid)—while simultaneously admonishing others to be more careful with their language—does not mean that others are so cynical, and that they possess the intentions you ascribe to them. If the only response you see to such a disagreement is pejorative language, accusations, and flame wars, then that says far more about your own character and temperment than it does about the content of my contributions.

First step is to move this discussion to the article's discussion page. If this is about content then it should be on the article discussion page where it belongs. It will also keep the things from being fragmented. Then progress might be made. - RoyBoy 07:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And make sure to sign your name on every discussion entry. - RoyBoy 08:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The entry is better the way it is because it doesn't say anything about him having enhanced or superhuman strength it merely states a few facts which are also stated in the Marvel Universe Wolverine 2004 and lets the reader draw thier own conclusion. Your entry has a ton of unnecessary information and is not NPOV. There is no need for you to explain to us what you think the opinions of some readers are regarding a comicbook characters powers. How do you know? Which readers? Did you conduct a statistical survey? Where can I look at the data? Seriously, this has gone on long enough and you need to find something more productive to do with your time. ScifiterX 8 July 2005 09:48 (UTC)

The fact that the version you favor entry does not mention the issue over his strength is precisely why it is incomplete. Reference sources like Misplaced Pages should address such discrepancies. It is for this reason that I feel it may be useful to present the contradictory bits of evidence cited by different people when discussing whether he does or doesn't have enhanced strength, and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Your statement that your version somehow allows readers to do this, even though it doesn't even mention the issue at all, makes no sense. You also provide no evidence or elaboration on how my version is not NPOV. How exactly is it not NPOV to incorporate evidence that both sides present on the matter? My version does not slant the information toward either side, which is exactly what an NPOV is. Moreover, my version also has other information regarding his superhuman powers that has nothing to do with the strength issue, and it is not your place to decide for others whether it is "necessary" or not. That's for readers to decide, depending on their curiosity and their needs. Lastly, which readers advocate which position on the strength issue is unimportant. The only important thing is that I incorporated the information they pointed to in support of their position, for which a statistical survey is neither necessary nor relevant. The only important data are the sources that I cited, which you can most certainly look up. Nightscream 7.8.05. 9:49am EST.

Its NPOV because you are telling us what the opinions of readers are and implying which opinions are correct. Its a fictional comic book character it isn't necessary to site sources for the character's powers. My comment about a statistical survey was a play on words, which apparently went over your head. Several people have been reverting your editing. I am not alone on this one. ScifiterX 8 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)

Nowhere in my version do I imply which opinions are "correct." I merely present both sides of the issue, and cite the arguments by each side. Nowhere do I indicate that one is correct and one is incorrect. Your comment about a statistical survey was not a play on words; it was a manipulation. Statistics are usually used in regards to quantitative issues (that is, how many people believe this or that), when in fact, nowhere in my version do I ever allude to the percentage of people who subscribe to one explanation or the other. Bringing the issue of statistics up, therefore, was irrelevant, and referring to it as a "play on words" is at best, demonstrative that you do not understand yourself what that phrase means, and at worst, disengenous on your part. Shocking as it may be to you, I know that others have been reverting the entry. So what? Most of them employ the same sort of Straw Men, word manipulation and other fallacies that you do, as well as irrelevant insults and name-calling, none of which I tend to take very seriously. If you want to engage in a civil discussion in which I might see your point of view, you might consider abandoning those tactics, since they do nothing to lend credence to your position, much less convince me Nightscream 7.8.05. 9:37pm EST.

Several Wikipedians agree that your edit is innapropriate for the entry. I have explained to you in very explicit and civil terms why we have come to this conclusion. I have never insulted you, but you have been quite rude in your correspondence with me, which so far I have generously overlooked. As I said before I welcome any appropriate contribution you can make to that or any other article. People don't always agree with each other. Let's all try to be a little more mature about this matter as it is rather insignificant compared to the other activities in our lives.ScifiterX 07:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The statement that you have never insulted me, and that it is somehow I who has been rude to you, is clearly false to anyone who reads our exchanges. To date, you and others have accused me of deliberately trying to antagonize you, you have presumed to know what my motives are behing my actions and my position, you have distorted my words and made manipulative use of words to do this. The idea that I have somehow been rude to you is just flat-out untrue, as is the notion that it is somehow you who has been "civil." You seem to think that merely stating an idea or an accusation somehow lends credence to it. It doesn't. In order for any idea to hold up, you have to provide evidence/reasoning for it. You have not done this. You say I've been rude to you. Fine. Please point to where I have done this. You say that my version of the section does not show a NPOV because it implies which side of the dispute over Wolverine's strength is correct, and that I have omitted and distorted information for the other. Fine. Please point to where I have done this. I challenged you on this a short while ago, and you again stonewalled on the matter by refusing to respond. By contrast, I can point to information that reflects my statements regarding your behavior and mine. You allude to what I am supposedly thinking, you assert that I somehow need a dictionary in order to use the words I used in my recent post to you (as if there are any words in that post that one cannot know by heart), and so forth. You're saying those are not insults? How so? For your part, the only things to which you can point as supposed insults on my part are when I point out the logical fallacies you employ, which is clearly not an insult, but a reasonable description of your arguments. As far as the explanations you have given on why my edit is inappropriate, I respectfully disagree with them, and have explained why, and in detail. It should be left to the readers looking for information to decide how much information or detail they need/want. Not the aesthetics of individual posters. I don't myself don't care for the recent addition of the section Wolvie's costumes, as his costume has never been a signature trait of the character. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to unilaterally decide to delete it. Moreover, only one portion of my edit refers to the dispute over his strength. The rest covers other information that the version you favor does not, such as the limits of his healing factor, the fact that his hair also grow back, and greater detail on his senses and claws. Your only response is to argue that length of a section equates with whether it makes sense and other fallacies, and to attack me and my motives. Nightscream Tue 7.12.05. 4:42am EST.

I've set up a section on Talk:Wolverine (comics)#Some sort of compromise and would appreciate your input. Steve block 13:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, the discussion has moved on a bit, please have a look and share your thoughts, cheers. Steve block 22:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please check Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule before further editing Wolverine (comics) for the next 24 hours. You are allowed only 3 reverts within 24 hours, otherwise you may be blocked from editing -- Chris 73 Talk 14:32, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Since you have ignored attempts to reach a compromise, and insist on editing warring at Wolverine (comics), I am citing you on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Nightscream. Steve block 14:37, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on Wolverine (comics). Please engage in dialogue with other editors and try to reach or accept a consensus view. --khaosworks 01:29, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

No problemo

Your welcome, I see spacing issues everyday... so its not just you :-). For future reference send communications/comments to users on their User talk page (their discussion tab). I've moved your message there and my talk page is directly liked by Boy in my signature. Have a better one, and keep up the good work. - RoyBoy 14:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pillock

I noticed your comments on Thrydulf's page. I just wanted to point out that a pillock can also be an objectionable person, used to describe someone you are in disagreement with. I would also like to extend to you an apology. It seems I did not acquaint myself fully with the situation. I have asked Thrydulf to protect the page and I have also asked Netaholic if he will keep an eye on the page. I'm not sure how to solve the impasse, but it needs to be somehow. Steve block talk 08:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that never once have I reverted the page. Steve block talk 08:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I referenced Dictionary.com for the word, and they did not provide that other meaning. Sorry if my reference to it was not as accurate as it could've been. Nightscream 7.20.05. 10:38am EST

Please stop using my user page to reply to other people.

Seriously, I have several messages on my user page from you, and none of them are directed at me. - SoM 15:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Step 3

Nightscream, would you now please take another look at Wolverine (comics)/Temp, and please incorporate the suggestions which SoM, ScifiterX, and myself have given. Let us know on Talk:Wolverine (comics)#Step 3 when you're satisfied with it. -- Netoholic @ 16:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Michael Jackson article

Hi, I noticed that you made some drastic changes to the aforementioned article. However, by the looks of things, the work was only half done. You deleted a lot of information including his discography, filmography, categories, external links, fansites and references; all of which are important. I understand that the article was a bit long, but the proper thing to do was to make seperate pages and provide links from the main articles to these pages. Ive reverted most of your changes and have made new ones. Journalist 05:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I have no idea how to revert changes. However, I go to the history and find the article in its previous state. I then copy everything from there and then delete the current article and paste it there. I dont know if its the right thing to do (or the easiest), but hey, it works. Im just currently working on the Michael Jackson article. I havent saved everything yet, though. Its giving me hell so I might leave some work for tomorrow, cause Im sleepy. By the way if I seemed bossy or harsh, I apologise. Journalist 05:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Everything alright? I looked at the article and seems to have worked out. In order to revert to an earlier version, what you do is click on the version you want from the history list... then edit that page and save with a comment explaining the reason for the revert and that version will become the article. - RoyBoy 14:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wolverine

I would advise you to let it go for a while. You had the best intentions and were being bold in editing an article; but your insistance on additions despite reverts from multiple editors will not look good in arbitration. That is entirely seperate from wether your additions are notable or not. Give yourself some more time to get a feeling for editing; and that might help you create a Wolverine proposal later on which can get more support. - RoyBoy 06:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

At least a few weeks... maybe till September sometime. Yeah in the meantime work around Misplaced Pages, and I'd suggest look at other Comic articles to see how they deal with inconsistent portrayals of abilities. Talk to users who have written comic articles (without mentioning Wolvering for a bit) and find out how they deal with inconsistency, and if they think its notable. To be honest its not notable to me, however I can see it as notable to someone interested in Comics, so a possible compromise is creating a sub-article on that. (For example on the Blade Runner article I created a lot of information on Themes in the film. Some people pointed out it was too much, and a little too interpretive, so I split it into Themes in Blade Runner and they can evolve on their own.)
As to "ScifiterX's slanderous attacks"... I try to look at things from the other persons perspective. Maybe he is a little defensive about the article, but it does seem clear he and others think you are dead wrong, and when you kept trying to put in your additions that pissed them off. So I actually blame you for their anger :"D, but as I said you were trying to improve the article, and that doesn't excuse their behavior. I'd say keep notes about the important stuff (especially Steve block being mislead) if you have to go to arbitration against ScifiterX. But keep in mind he got angry for a reason.
Hopefully the next time you will be more tactful (not pushing your edits on the article right away), and will have a solid argument for inclusion (or splitting) of some details based on comparisons to other Comic articles. Ultimately that's what I see making or breaking your edits, if other articles don't have this information, then neither should this one. - RoyBoy 16:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek Pages

Just letting you know that there is a standard format that the trek pages have been organized into. When you add things please see how they are set up before making changes. As a rule: the "Quick Overview" line is a quick one sentence description of the episode (not a paragraph for the whole plot). Anything like credits, tidbits of info, and such are put under the "Trivia" section. Thanks. Cyberia23 08:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess not, when I saw it it was bigger in size like (Star Trek pages) above. I reduced it to the smaller size. Cyberia23 08:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
yeah thats cool. Cyberia23 10:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

User categorization

You were listed on the Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians/New Jersey page as living in or being associated with New Jersey. As part of the Misplaced Pages:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in New Jersey for instructions. Al 15:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Brian Stack (politican)

You didn't actually have to do an Afd on your duplicate article. You could have used a redirect instead to point your article to the duplicate one instead. Redirects can be done by anyone and sense you were the author, no one would have objected. Just thought I'd let you know in case you weren't aware. -- JLaTondre 00:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Mariah Carey

I removed the following sentence that you added to the Mariah Carey article: "(In fact, she merely removed a loose-fitting sweater to reveal tight shorts and a top underneath.)" This may be what happened (I wouldn't know), but this statement may be a violation of Misplaced Pages's no original research policy. All the references that I added to the article regarding this incident referred to it as a "strip tease", so the article should reflect this. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 15:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Sivana & the F4

Taken care of. Thanks for the expansion. --FuriousFreddy 18:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Date links

This is regarding the article Joe Madureira. Please note that according to Misplaced Pages's guidelinies regarding date formatting, "simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so." These should only be linked if they're part of a full date with day & month, as in December 28 2005. If they occure alone, just December or just 2005 or just December 2005, they shouldn't be linked. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

1, Usually, neither the month nor years are really relevant to the article. The article about a specific month or year will usually not provide any information relevant to, say Battle Chasers. Full dates with day, month & year are linked so that user's individual date preferences (under my preferences) work.
2, I think the best way to handle this right now is to contact the user friendly on his talk page, and explain that information on Misplaced Pages should be sourced and all the other explainations from the article's talk page (I guess he/she just didn't read that). If that doesn't help, you can add warnings to his talk page and finally if all else fails use administrator intervention against vandalism.
Hope that helps. Let me know if you need any other help. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 22:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
1, I think the difference is that people reading the BC article might not know what Wizard is, therefor the link can be helpful. It's fair to assume everybody knows what May or December or 2005 is. ;-)
2, even IPs have talk pages. For the one who keeps editing the article that's User talk:68.46.36.1. And everybody who isn't an IP is a registered user, redlinks only indicate that they haven't written anything on their userpage, yet. (The user you where talking about is Inmytown, right? His talk page is User talk:Inmytown and that's only a redlink because nobody has written him anything, yet.) So you can just go ahead and write on either of the two pages I linked here. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nightscream. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5