User talk:Nightscream/Archive 1

Archive 1: March 17, 2005 - April 22, 2007

Corey Clark

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

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

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

Image tagging for Image:CoreyClark.jpg

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

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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

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

Image:RupertSheldrake.jpg listed for deletion

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:RupertSheldrake.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[1][2]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

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

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

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

20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Pedro Zamora

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

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

Sandman

Hi--I'm not an administrator, but when a vandal ignores all warnings, I report them here [3]. I have found this to be very effective; usually an administrator looks into these complaints within minutes, and blocks the vandal if appropriate. Best of luck, JNW 00:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks

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

AfD Help

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

• Miguel Luis Tamargo-Bautista
• Vinagre Portillo
• Alonso J. del Portillo-Tamargo
• Alonso R. del Portillo
• Alonso del Portillo-Marcano
• Alonso del Portillo-del Junco

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

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

Calhoun quote

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

J.K. Woodward

Sure, no problem. This interview[4] describes his process:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kerry Washington

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

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

Frankie Abernathy

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

Re: Gunslinger

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

Union City

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

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

• I'll start with the BTW: I had planned the date on my calendar, but relative was in the hospital in Brooklyn. On the way home we passed up the West Side Highway, so close to Central Park, but not close enough. I would have enjoyed meeting you and other folks in person. As to Union City being the densest city in the United States, I have been searching for the perfect source -- one that uses those exact words -- for nearly a year. The sources I have added are OK, but far from definitive. I could give you the following -- The Most & the Least, Time (magazine), November 9, 1962. "MOST DENSELY POPULATED CITY: Union City, N.J., with 40,138 people per sq. mi. Next: Hoboken, N.J. with 37,262. New York City has only 24,697—although one of its boroughs, Manhattan, jams 77,195 into each square mile." -- but that's 45 years old. Another one is more recent -- A case in point is Union City, New Jersey, right across the Hudson River from Manhattan. The most densely populated city in the U.S. (with over 52,000 residents per square mile), it has an ethnic mix that used to be predominantly Cuban but now includes immigrants from Central and South America as well as the Caribbean." -- but it's a tangential comment in an article about education, not population. This next one comes from a government source -- http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/techconf99/whitepapers/paper1.html "The Secretary's Conference on Educational Technology-1999"], United States Department of Education. "Union City, New Jersey, is located in Hudson County, directly across the Hudson River from Manhattan. With 60,000 residents in 1.4 square miles, it is the most densely populated city in the United States." -- but it's using pre-2000 census data. I can't find the home run source, but it seems that there's enough out there to hang a hat on. Any thoughts? Alansohn 03:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are sources for the population density. I was asking about sources for the distinction you assert between "town" and "city".

However, the density issue itself merits discussion. Why did you delete the information I gave showing different sources giving different rankings to the various cities, including sources that post-date the 2000 Census? How were those not valid? Nightscream 03:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't remove any of the sources, they're all there, just used differently. The distinction is arbitrary, but Union city is incorporated as a City, and Guttenberg is incorporated as a Town. Guttenberg is more densely populated, but Union City is the most densely populated city. The wording that had existed previously was "The city's exact state and national ranking varies, depending on sources, with a 2000 report by the Center for Children and Technology placing it at #1,<ref name="CCT"/> a 2003 article at northjersey.com placing it at #2, behind New York City<ref name="northjersey"/> and the [[United States Census, 2000|U.S. Census]] placing it at #2 in the state behind [[Guttenberg]].<ref name="Census"/>" The source from The Record states that ""Passaic is the third most densely populated city in America, after Union City and New York City..."; it doesn't say it's number 2, it says it's first. As stated above, Guttenberg is denser, but it's a town, not a city. The previous statement in the lead, that "It is one of the most densely populated cities in the United States, with a density of 52,977.8 per square mile" does not the qualification that it is "one of" the most densely populated cities, so the wording was removed. I am still searching for a more definitive source, but sources are provided that do support the claim that Union City is the "most densely populated city in the United States." Alansohn 04:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Pics from Wiknic

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

• Thank you so much! I will not post the other pic, just the two you posted. I may not be able to do this right now, as I have to go to a lunch meeting with another teacher and do other stuff. Bearian 15:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I finally posted your images at my userpage and my WP portfolio page. Thanks again. Bearian 14:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Die Hard - McLean meeting Johnson

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

Snape edit

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

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

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

Video Professor

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

TheRealWorldWiki

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

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

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

Brian Sapient

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

Tratare

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your image uploads

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

ossie davis

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

Image source problem with Image:CruzBacklit.jpg

Image Copyright problem

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

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

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

Your recent edit to Roger Ebert

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

Midnighter edits

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

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

New York City Meetup

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday November 3rd, Brooklyn Museum area Last: 8/12/2007

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

Speedy deletion of Tom Grindberg

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

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

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

Re: Peri’ah metsitsah

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

It was not clear that the material was covered under the citation. Since I was fairly sure it was not accurate (and apparently unsourced), I replaced it. So as not to act in a biased manner, I requested a source for my version.

I believe the article makes a couple other minor mistakes. For example, I think that "Peri’ah" and "metsitsah" are two separate acts. Secondly, I now notice that the custom is called "Hasidic." It is not a Hasidic custom, but a general Orthodox one. Furthermore, it is still practiced by most, if not all, Orthodox Jews, but not usually with physical contact. If the source also contains these mistakes, it is not a very good source. --Eliyak T·C 02:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See Brit milah: Metzitzah --Eliyak T·C 02:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Christopher Hitchens is a well-known journalist, it would appear that he satisfies any reasonable criteria for credibility. The material is not "apparently unsourced", since I placed the citation in it. I can assure you that the details in the article are derived directly from the book, and if you want, I can scan the two pages to show them. Since the WP standard is attribution and credible sources, not truth, we cannot simply alter it by using your personal knowledge, which would violate WP:OR. What I would suggest is that you find some other source of equivalent credibility, so that if you want, we can add an alternate viewpoint to the article. Nothing I see on the Brit milah article contradicts this, as the phrase "peri'ah metsitsah" doesn't even show up in it. (If you were referring to some other aspect of that article, let me know.) Nightscream 02:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not doubt you that the material is found in Hitchens' book, as you describe. With all due respect to Christopher Hitchens, he does not determine Jewish practice. A good source for Jewish practice would be one of the codifications of Jewish law such as the Talmud, Mishnah Torah, the Shulchan Aruch], or modern responsa on the topic. No respectable Orthodox Jew would act not in accordance with these sources. It does not make sense to treat Hitchens him as a distinct opinion in this area. In terms of the current events sorounding the controversy, journalism and modern scholarship are of course the natural sources to turn to. I thought that it was self-evident that Hitchens would not be the source for Jewish practice, and assumed that the footnote referred to the information regarding the controversy.

In the Brit milah article, I provided you the direct link to the metzitzah section. Periah is mentioned elsewhere in the article without explanation (which there should be). It refers to peeling back the foreskin. As you note, "periah metzitzah" is not mentioned in the article at all. Nor is it available on Google as a phrase in any combination which I tried. I do not believe it exists. I will attempt to find some sources regarding metzitzah in Jewish practice.--Eliyak T·C 02:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why you keep reverting my changes, which are now sourced. Maimonides was not Hassidic; he lived several hundred years before Hasidic Judaism came into existence; thus his record of metzitzah indicates that it is not hasidic. I can continue to bring sources from all the important Jewish sources, if you like. But apparently you do not care. Christopher Hitchens speaks the word of God. If Maimonides disagrees with him, he is "another source."

By "hassidic," Hitchens obviously means Haredim. This is a classical mistake, and would be enough to indicate that he did not research his background information well. But even if he means Haredim, he is still patently wrong, since Maimonides, the Shulchan Aruch and the Talmud are held by all Orthodox Jews. These are easily verifiable facts. Even were he not patently wrong on these counts, he would still not be a good source for the new name "periah metzitzah," which does not exist in the sources. Periah is not even the subject of the article.

As you say, Hitchens is a journalist. This makes him qualified, one would assume, to report on current events. He is not a Talmudist or other scholar of Jewish practice. In this area, it is his book that is the anomaly, not Maimonides.--Eliyak T·C 03:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I did read your comments to my page. You requested that I provide sources, which I have. My arguement against Hitchens is not ad hominem, since I have backed up my claims with a source. I am arguing that given two sources, we should trust the one with greater expertise. By the way, you are ignoring the valid points I made against Hitchens' research in this area.

The brit milah article, among other things, quotes several non-Hassidic sources on metzitzah, and provides a source that the procedure has the purpose of cleaning the wound, which would not be accomplished by sucking up the foreskin. It also uses the term metzitzah (again, found in Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, the Talmud, and responsa). It provides much information on the controversy as well.

I have, additionally, done a Google search for the Hebrew term "periah metzitzah," which can really only be spelled one way in Hebrew. [5] All instances are in the context of a listing of the steps of cirumcision, which include periah and metzitzah. (You will notice commas in most cases.) In other words, no one has entered this ostensibly news-worthy term on any web page indexed by Google. --Eliyak T·C 04:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you. -- Avi 12:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Request

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

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

There are reasons to have both, as WP:CITE discusses. I can give one practical example in WikiProject Comics: Writing and art credits that are given for a dozen or two individual issues needn't have each one footnoted when, instead, there can be one Reference link to a database, such as Grand Comics Database and others, in which anyone can readily look up any issue in question. It helps to save clutter and needless extra work.

Hope this helps, and thanks again for your contributions. It's good to have people such as yourself (and myself, too, I think) who are willing to put the time and effort into proper formatting and punctuation and such! --Tenebrae 03:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

NYC meetup change of schedule

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

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

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

Mitchell Olson AFD

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

Meetup

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

King Taharqa

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

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

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

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

Your RfA

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

I tried to start a nom for you, but it failed because you nominated yourself 2 years ago. I'll have to figure out how to do a second nomination. In the meanwhile, why don't you get involved at WP:RFA and "vote" a few times ON OTHER NOMINATIONS. Also, read all of the sub-pages about what to expect. There are instructions at WP:RFA/N. 16:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)

See also Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Bearian 19:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

See also User:Bearian/Standards. Bearian 21:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The voting has started. Remember, DO NOT VOTE FOR YOURSELF. Bearian 14:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You may cut and paste this template for the top of your user page, removing the nowiki tags:

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

Hi Nightscream,

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

• For some perspective, read User:Keegan/On administrators as to why WP:RFA is so important. Bearian 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 Wikipedia interactions. EdJohnston 04:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Alphabet Supes

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

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

Michael Shermer

There was a missing </ref> tag and a misplaced fact tag. See this diff:[6]. Bearian 00:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

'The Real World'

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

The Real World: Austin

Regarding this edit:

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

Palisades Mall

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

Sorry in advance, as I really don't mean to carry this on or be uncivil (as I said earlier, I truly am sorry I referred to content in a disparaging way). You are 100% correct that you can take a photo from across the street. However, where the primary subject is the likeness of the mall and its logo, something which you have not secured license to, you cannot freely decide how to license the photo. See also Trade dress. Property releases and model releases are standard legal protections for both the photographer and subject. [7] Finally the "rules and regulations" posted near main entrances do list photography as a prohibited activity. But really, I just meant to illustrate that rules are often broken unknowingly. A better way to say what I said previously, in a future edit, would be to simply state the factual dispute and cite a counter-source, and I will be more considerate in the future. --MMX 22:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Jal Culluh

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

AfD nomination of Jal Culluh

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

IP blocks

Just a quick note since I've seen you only blocked once [8]: never block an IP indefinitely, if you are not 100% sure of qhat you are doing. IPs are shuffled regularly, and you most probably never know if that school will still have this IP in a few months, and the bored kid there will be long gone. We usually block IPs for vandalism for maximum 6 months (if the vandalism is endless, and starts again immediately after shorter blocks). For Schools, you might wish to consider {{schoolblock}} as your block reason. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

John Harriman

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

Peters Cartridge Company

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

Duplicate Image:ParallaxComic.jpg

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

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

Parallax image

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

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

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

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

Copyright law does, period.

These are not are images. We do not have the right to alter them to any extent we see fit.

Cropping is one thing. That is taking a portion without altering the work.

Graying or desaturating non-focus elements is an extension of that. Arguments can be made doth ways about that alteration of the image. It's shaky at best since it is a direct change to the work.

Both of those fall within "fair use".

There is also the cut out option, which takes a bit more time and would be a variation of a crop. I didn't mention it above because, frankly, the two ways it would normally be applied are less than good for this image. The first would be to square cut the insert out, leaves an ugly white hole though. The second would be to remove the background from around the entirety of the figure, which merges into the background.

Thinking on that... let me post something over one of the orphans and see how it sets with you. - J Greb (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to Image:ParallaxComic2.jpg - J Greb (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

World's Finest

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

Thanks for getting back to me, and thanks for being more polite; it's a big plus for me. Allow me to cut right to your points:

Using "WF" - the article draws the connection - a fairly sizable one, I think - between Midnighter and Batman. The citation also draws a connection between the duo of Midnighter and Apollo with the pairing of Batman and Superman. As the latter pair have been repeatedly, citably and notably referred to as the World's Finest and the article actually exists entitled World's Finest discussing this pairing, it is appropriate to note it. Yes, the article is about the Midnighter, but since a number of parallels have been cited between his partnership with Apollo and that of Batman and Superman, even noting the titling of the Batman/Superman pairing as World's Finest, it behooves us to include it.

Using "the" Batman - It is also appropriate to note at the first mentioning the proper term of the character, and as Batman's 'formal title is The Batman, it's encyclopedic to note it. Subsequent mentions of the character don't require the definite article.

"Shoehorn" - I am aware of the proper definition of the term, Nightscream. What I don't understand is your contention that the article is so bloated that a properly cited reference and a definite article are going to cause the article to explode.

Also difficult to fathom is your inferred contention that if it is older, it has no relevance. I would submit that pairings like that of Midnighter and Apollo would never have been conceived has it not been for the existence of the World's Finest or the component members. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

WF is not an unwieldy term, as I will illustrate in an edit as soon as I am finished posting here (I'll subsequently provide a link for it here).

The Batman is the formal name used in the comics, the various television programs (live-action and animated) and product merchandised by DC Comics. References to the character initially being called the Batman still occurs in the comics (Nightwing, the GCPD mini-series, Batgirl: Year One. Batman: Year One, Batman One Million, etc.) Using a commonly referred to name is entirely appropriate, after the proper name is given. Other examples would be the Atom, the Green Arrow, etc. As well, common parlance is not an excuse for failing to use the proper name. For example, many people commonly refer to Spider-Man without with hyphen (Spiderman), which is entirely understandable, and entirely inaccurate. Should we use the non-hyphenated version simply because that is what is commonly used? Clearly, we cannot.

Shoehorn is the term you initially used, defining the metaphorical usage as "forcing something into a limited or tight space". You implied that the article was too full to allow for the usage, which I found puzzling. If I misinterpreted your usage of the term, accept my apology. Allow me to simplify my reasoning here (not intended as an insult, but an attempt at transparency):

1. Midnighter was inspired by the Batman character. As well, the Midnighter copies many of the traits of Batman.

2. Midnighter is partnered with Apollo, who has been cited as being an analog of Superman.

3. Batman and Superman are historically and citably known as the "World's Finest".

4. When this pairing is analogous as a reference point for M and A, it becomes notable. As there is a citation to that effect in the article, it becomes ever more so.

5. Therefore, noting the existence of the WF moniker used to describe the pairing of Batman and Superman - analogs from which Midnighter and Apollo were created and paired together - is significant and important.

I hope that explains my point better, Nightscream. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I rather disagree with your contention that 'World's Finest' is an "obscure nickname". A Google search uncovered over 160 results for "World's Finest", and almost all of them referred to Batman and Superman. In addition, the publication history of that particular branding of the DC hero pairing has run for over 40 years - hardly an obscure reference.

As we seem to not really be finding a resolution, perhaps we need to file an RfC regarding this point, and get some neutral input. thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And if you showed pictures of Spider-Man or the Atom to that same random group on the street, they would identify them as "Spiderman" and Atom, so I would dare say that the argument is about as valid as my Google one; incidentally , it isn't a non-sequitur to note the predominant presence of one thing as an identifier for something, such as 'World's Finest; (which - again - is neither obscure nor non-pertinent), as we aren't really weighing hits against google-bombing and whatnot. You are a smart fellow, please don't insult either of us by playing coy as to my argument. While I am are aware you disagree with my argument, please don't pretend to not understand it; it wastes both our time.

My position remains unchanged. Unfortunately, you have not offered me compelling reasons why a derivative character of the Batman shouldn't refer to the correct name of the parent character. I can see a bit' of leeway in referring to Batman and Superman's relationship in comparison to that of Midnighter and Apollo in simply avoiding making the comparison so as to avoid the mention of the titled pairing of the DC characters. If you offer perhaps a more compelling argument to counter mine as to why we should avoid the long-term name of the Batman-Superman pairing, I am quite willing to listen. Of course, it will be far more difficult to dissuade me from "the Batman", as that is pretty cut and dried.

I suggested the RfC because I foresee that if we cannot agree, this will only go back and forth some more, and one of us is going to likely become impolite, and then it will get ugly. People will cry. Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanzaa will be spoiled. the might even be a great gnashing of teeth. ;) I suggest that an RfC allows us the opportunity to have our arguments - while they are still cogent and civil here - heard by a third party (or parties), who can weigh in and render a neutral decision not based on any personal bias. I think it is a fair next step in this process, as I don;t really see either of us budging off our present positions. If you file, I will support it, - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

AfD nomination of Guy Aoki

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

Happy New Year

Thanks for the message. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You're invited!

...to the next New York City Meetup!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area Last: 11/3/2007

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

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 Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote for a post-meetup restaurant

I'm charged with making the reservations for us, 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 Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#Let's make it official. 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). ScienceApologist (talk) 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. :-) east.718 at 05:52, January 16, 2008

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney 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. Lawrence Cohen 14:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mill Creek Mall

I have nominated Mill Creek Mall, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill Creek Mall. 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. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 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. --RucasHost (talk) 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.". --RucasHost (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Peters Cartridge Company

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

Corey Clark

Hello Nightscream. I do think that the {{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, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGarbageMan (talk • contribs) 22:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Atheist and Agnostic Group

An article that you have been involved in editing, Atheist and Agnostic Group, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheist and Agnostic Group. Thank you. George100 (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Corey Worthington

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Corey Worthington. 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. AW (talk) 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 wikipedia is smaller than myspace and the current Muhammad image fuss is bigger than what we are talking about. Does get mentioned in the wikipedia article.Geni 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebreality

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.--Pharos (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Betsy Ross House has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you.

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. :) Stephen Day (talk) 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. :) Stephen Day (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My edits

Hello, I got your warning for the second time (my apologies) about the edit to List of other South Park residents. I got that bit about the R/L confusion being Japanese and not Chinese from Wikipedia's own Engrish page, just 2 let u no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.219.159 (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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? Zoidbergmd (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarified, verified, sourced. Zoidbergmd (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area Last: 1/13/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan 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 Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris Rock

The truth is always appropriate. --TheTruthiness (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

re: Anita Bryant

The 'box is fixed. And I see what the problem was, that 'box is designed to not use the [[Image:<filename.ext>|<size>px|<caption>]] 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.

- J Greb (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Pedro Zamora

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. Callelinea (talk) 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.Callelinea (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • THE WEEKLY NEWS - TWN Callelinea (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobol (talk • contribs) 10:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Meet up

It was good to see you again! Do you know when you are going to upload the video? Thanks for doing that. --David Shankbone 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. --David Shankbone 05:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion avoidance

Such activity is explicitly prohibited by Wikipedia. For an example of a MfD I placed pointing this out less than one week ago, see this. Also, if this user is creating new users to do this, it is also in violation of Wikipedia's alternate account policy and should be brought up to the sockpuppet noticeboard. Especially note the third criteria of this of guideline, this guideline, and criteria 4 for CSD for rationales why this stuff should be deleted from Wikipedia.

If I were you, I would place the Template:Db-g4 speedy deletion tags on all the offending pages. If the author removes them, bring them up immediately to WP:MfD. 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.ScienceApologist (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked over your WP:SSP. 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 WP:DELETE. 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. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I note that criteria 4 has some weird wording that confused User:Rudget 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 WP:MfD for the entire lot (similar to this) so that you don't have to worry about this anymore. Sorry this is so complicated. Wikipedia navigation through policy pages can be a nightmare. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tlogmer - none of those users exist, so I've closed the case. Rudget. 18:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. SA gives good advice above about SSPs. Rudget. 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. Dlohcierekim 20:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

See what I mean about people not understanding? In any case, there are two issues here:

1. 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.
2. 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 walled garden to keep favorite articles that were deleted according to proper deletion discussions still on Wikipedia. Such "underground keeps" are not allowed. YMMV. ScienceApologist (talk) 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 here. 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, ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to comment there. I'd like to read your side of the story. ScienceApologist (talk) 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 Commons:Upload).

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 Internet Archive myself. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 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. ThuranX (talk) 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 Countdown to Final Crisis and Countdown to Infinite Crisis. The leads there start with the indecia title and explain why the article uses a different name. The difference with Ultimates being 1) Wikipedia 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. - J Greb (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I did it myself. ThuranX (talk) 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 [9] 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.171.93 (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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 willywonka266 (talk) 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. Stextc (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Name

Beast Machines? Krem (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you named after a certain goofy bat kid? Krem (talk) 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 [10]. This led to you making a faulty accusation here [11] 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 [12], 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[13]. 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 [14]. 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. BicMacDad18 (talk) 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 [15]. Feel free to comment there, but I'm going to move on and just wait for his take on it BicMacDad18 (talk) 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 ;) BicMacDad18 (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to involve yourself in this discussion on the Mediation Cabal page [16]. 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! BicMacDad18 (talk) 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 Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper). The onus would be on the person wanting to use the source to show that that was the case. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 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.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.144.228.49 (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

MySpace

I can't look at your drawings because I'm not on Myspace. Maybe one day I'll get into it. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Alonso R. del Portillo

Could you please look over the article and give your imput in the AFD. Callelinea (talk) 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. Callelinea (talk) 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 Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, 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 User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 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 here. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: BicMac18 Sock

I put in the Checkuser request here. 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.Gwandoya ^Talk 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! Vassyana (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.164.133 (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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. User: 128.210.71.26 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.198.208 (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking access to the Telstra-related sites. Tarnya Dunning —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarnya Dunning (talk • contribs) 09:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MarloBettyBonding.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MarloBettyBonding.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia 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 criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RDR vs. Rowling

You added some good material, but the proper place to put it is in Legal disputes over Harry Potter. Thanks. Serendi^podous 06:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled

Hey, thanks for the offer, I might take you up on that. BTW, thanks for stepping in. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 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, Mackan79 (talk) 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? Mackan79 (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no problem then, that would explain it. Thanks for checking again. Mackan79 (talk) 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? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 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! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

hey what is that crazy shit you put on my talk page about?

Seriously. Angry Christian (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)