User talk:NinjaRobotPirate

Disney

Hey don't forget the legend that Walt Disney was born out of wedlock in spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeljackson87 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

AFT5 re-enabled

Hey NinjaRobotPirate :). Just a note that the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5 has now been re-enabled. Let us know on the talkpage if you spot any bugs. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Re Personal attacks at Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes

I am greatly offended by the latest personal attack by Liangshan Yi in the RFC comments. As this needs addressing and I am not allowed to take further part in the RfC I thought you may be able to do something. Only one of the current editors was editing the article at the date of Liangshan Yi's latest "makes Deckers look bad" diffs (Nov 2009) and he had only begun editing it a few weeks earlier with all his edits involving the reversion of spam and vandalism.[1] The first edit to add or remove actual content by any current editor was made in April 2010 and within six months the article was looking very similar to the current version. It can equally be argued that the current Australian editors are responsible for the neutrality of the current version.
Also P&W and Liangshan keep going on about Luda being a case that proves their argument. Luda in fact has been specifically mentioned as part of the generic dispute as can be seen here. Cheers Wayne (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not asking that you report it or anything like that. I just feel someone should point out the flaws in his argument to put the constant claims of Australian bias to bed. Wayne (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Music Tags

Hi, the RFC at Talk:Arlene's Grocery was removed so what do we do now in your opinion? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi it was closed, should we talk at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music like you suggest? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi did you miss my message here? Sorry I do not wish to bother you, thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Would you like to start that discussion, you can give me the link, it will be educational for me. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Beyond the Black Rainbow

Greetings... Thanks for your helpful editing in the Beyond the Black Rainbow article. I noticed you added some reviews to the "Reception" section. I wrote down the BtBR reviews of a number of major magazine / newspapers in the article's talk page. You mind giving them a look sometime? Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

RSN

Hi NinjaRobotPirate. Thanks for your comments in the section on WP:RSN regarding the website 'movie-collection.com'. Whilst I am considering the possibility that your assessment is true, I am currently not convinced due to the reasons I have mentioned in my reply to your comment. I'm not sure if you watch the page or if you just stop by it from time to time like I do, so I thought I'd let you know I have replied to you comment on your talk page, as I am somewhat eager to find out if this source can be used or not. I'm going to wait for at least a third opinion anyway (or ask for one if nobody else drops in on the conversation) before deciding on whether or not to use the source, i'd just appreciate if you could take my comments into consideration when you look at the source again. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't watch the page. Thanks for the note. It's probably a good idea to get more opinions, because I'm certainly no expert. However, the site seems quite suspicious to me, and I didn't see any obvious source listed for their content. That immediately set off warning bells, as well as the broken English. Sometimes you can find citations for awards on the website for the organization, but it's often very difficult to find citations for nominations. I've found local newspapers to be helpful in that respect (for example, the Toronto Sun for the Toronto International Film Festival). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice and comments. Freikorp (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thank you for the helpful copy-edits to Fucking Machines, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate external links

Hey NinjaRobotPirate. I saw your post on my talk page, and was wondering which rules the links broke. The website I linked to has a huge amount of information on collectibles, particularly for many that are hard to research. —Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1

As the WP:PR reviewer, I was hoping you might care to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You are invited for discussion

Hello,

As one of the participants in the original discussion, you are invited to participate in the follow-up discussion to a Mass removal of indefinite rangeblocks under controlled conditions. Your views will be appreciated.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOVs

Thanks for bringing the FDFW article to my attention. Definitely a hit piece. I tried to tone it down and dial it back to neutral. Jaytwist (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Story of a Small Town

Merger of Small Town Story (song) was reverted. So I created another discussion. Feel free to comment in talk page. --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin

I'd appreciate if you would take another look at the RfC discussion on the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. In your 16 August post, you said that your recommendation for the RfC would depend on what additional information was presented. I proposed specific text for consideration shortly afterward in the discussion thread that I hope you will comment on. Dezastru (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pixar Theory

As the concept of a Pixar Universe preceded the Negroni thesis by a decade, I seek your opinion about THIS. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I can fold my little sourced article into the main topic Pixar and we'd have a suitable redirect target for The Pixar Theory? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with a merge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Gladiators events.

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlaspheres, I have deleted all of the listed articles. I have also proposed to merge List of American Gladiators events with List of Gladiators UK events, as the materials onthose pages are largely duplicative. Based on your participation in the deletion discussion, you may also wish to participate in the merge discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gladiator (1986 film)

I wish to let you know that "substantial" is NOT a requirement of WP:SIGCOV. Per that guideline, and accepted by WP:NFF, "significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. User:Taylor Trescott provided some quite decent, non-trivial sources, meeting the definition under SIGCOV. Article improvement is now underway and I am myself looking for more. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Sorcerer Barnstar

Hello, sorry that I couldn't get back earlier to you, I've been busy writing my master's thesis but now I officially graduated! So thank you for your kind words and I'll try contribute even more! Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review

Ninja, There's a deletion review for the Nathaniel Raymond article. Your comments at the AfD are discussed. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_October_17 DavidinNJ (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I'm tempted to just ignore it and let the drama play out without my involvement, but I may comment if I can think of something civil and relevant to add. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Information request.

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sortable list of Attorneys-General of Australia, I have requested some information from you, (should you be in the mood to provide it). Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

First off, I'd like to apologize for giving you any potential stress related to Wikipedia, as I see that you're already on a Wikibreak. My comments in that discussion were not meant as criticism of your actions, but I see now that they could easily be taken that way. Wikipedia can be arcane and bureaucratic, and investigating its inner workings can only lead to disillusionment. I can understand wanting to avoid bureaucracy and overly critical people, but Wikipedia has tightened its rules on article creation over the years. When I said that consensus should have been sought, what I meant was to bring up a discussion on the talk page of the original article. WP:BRD is not policy, but it's a helpful essay on this situation. Basically, editors are encouraged to make bold changes to articles (such as making tables sortable), but when other editors take exception to those changes, the matter should be brought up for discussion on the talk page. One possible route is through a request for comments, where uninvolved editors are solicited for opinions. I can help you with that, if you'd like, but it might be easier to just make a suggestion and see what other people think. Maybe the person who reverted the edit has changed his/her mind or lost interest in the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What a remarkably civil reply! Thank you!! As is often the case, it's past bedtime here - I'll reply further tomorrow. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Request to reconsider your AfD

Hello, you recently created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roedy Green (2nd nomination). I have re-written the article Roedy Green and think that many of the concerns you mentioned at the AfD may have been addressed. If you have a moment, please review the new version of the article and revisit your !vote at the AfD if your mind has changed. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, and with all due respect for your work at locating sources and rewriting the article, I have the same concerns as PeteBaltar and Green Cardamom. I would feel better about changing my vote if, instead of multiple clams of debatable significance, the article offered a single strong claim to notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Scope and title for Bisexuality in the Arab world

During the recent AfD for Bisexuality in the Arab world (closed as 'keep') you will either have seen opinions expressed to expand the scope of the article, or voiced that opinion yourself. I am placing this notice on the talk pages of all who expressed an opinion of whatever type in that deletion discussion to invite you to participate in a discussion on article scope and title at Talk:Bisexuality in the Arab world. You are cordially invited to participate. By posting this message I am not seeking to influence your opinion one way or another. Fiddle Faddle 10:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Request

I would like to ask that you review and comment on this proposal on the Talk:Captain_Phillips_(film) page. Thanks - thewolfchild 19:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your kind comments here. Apparently I posted my review request in the wrong forum. In any case, due to the bullying in question from the other user and the various sockpuppets supporting him, I have elected to depart WP for the time being. Unfortunately, it just doesn't appear I am able to participate in the Ronan Farrow entry without becoming subject to intense abuse by the other editor and an evolving cast of sockpuppets. In any case, the reason I really wanted to comment is to let you know that the "other registered user" the editor in question kept referencing as also decrying my edits as disruptive has just been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet (the ninth so far) so your instinct was correct and I thank you much for expressing it. I hope someday someone has the courage to address the very strange behavior occurring in that entry by an established editor and an almost endless string of socks ... I thought it was me, but - alas - it's not. King regards, BlueSalix (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

As an independent, longtime Wikipedia editor with a constructive reputation, unaffiliated with the socks in any way, I need to point out that despite BlueSalix's self-serving assertions, no one ever "bullied" him or subjected him to "intense abuse." Those are false accusations, and serious ones. The Ronan Farrow talk-page discussions are available for anyone to read, as are, via history, posts BlueSalix deleted on his own talk page.

Additionally, BlueSalix has just taken a highly in appropriate action in asking admin Someguy1212 here to roll back Ronan Farrow to his own preferred version as an end-run to avoid other editors and an RfC that was going against him. Many of Blue Salix's own edits have been biased, one-sided attacking edits that clearly appear to be based on his own personal disagreements with the article subject's politics. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice on Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia

Hello, I would like to inform you that a requested move proposal has been started on the Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia talk page. I have sent you this message since you are a user who has participated in one or more of these discussions. Thank you for reading this message. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

List of Zombie Films

Hi, I have swept through the List of zombie films and added references. Please take a look as well as the Disputed section in talk. Thanks. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. Good job. I got bored and moved on after I found references for what I considered to be the most important films. I'd hold off on moving more films out of this master list, as I'm going to try to get everything merged into it; however, you're free to do what you will, of course. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Removing outside wiki site from Shroud of the Avatar

Just stopping back in to reference you two different articles that offer validity to http://sotawiki.net/ - Both coming from the Shroud of the Avatar main site: https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?p=34637 and https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?p=34688. Let me know when you're ready to acknowledge this site and it's validity as it is 100% in accordance with all wikipedia rules that I can find. Alternatively please point me to the rule that shows it should not be listed. Thanks!

Bold words response

That time, I had to link shadow somewhere. If you'd like to link it to any other shadow on the Shadow person page, go right ahead. Rtkat3 (talk) 3:57, December 9 2013 (UTC)

Sure, there's nothing wrong with linking to shadow, but it breaks the Manual of Style to link bold words. Preferably, the next occurrence should be linked. Per WP:OVERLINK, I usually don't bother to link common English words, but it's not a big deal. 21:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Frankenstein Theory

That wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen. Karl was pretty cool--pity he died off-camera. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I really disliked it the first time I watched it. When I had trouble remembering the plot details, I rewatched it, and I liked it significantly more that time. I agree – Karl was pretty cool. After I worked on that article, I debated creating articles on Timothy V. Murphy and Joe Egender, but I couldn't find any good sources, and it's difficult to make the argument that they're movie stars. Oh well. Some day. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Civil Affairs Staging Area

Great job on the spacing. The article looks much better! Nvidia9 (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a very in-depth article, but I think Wikipedia's unforgiving rendering has made it a little unwieldy. Wikipedia will render everything as a single, long paragraph if you let it, so sometimes you have to make the paragraph breaks a bit more obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Kwartet Deletion

Hey could you userfy the article for The Kwartet that was deleted by SpacemanSpiff? I tried contacting spacemanspiff, but he is not active anymore. As I said on his page, I just saw the Kwartet live and they were fantastic. I'm sure that I could find more sources and help clean up the previous article. Thanks for any help! - Hicham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hicham Riyad (talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hell (2011 film)

Hi. Thanks for expanding the article. Please note that the parent country categories (in thise case German films, Swiss films) should be included on all film articles per WP:FILMCAT, as they are non-diffusing. Per the category page itself "For convenience, all Swiss films are included in this category. This includes all Swiss films that can also be found in the subcategories." If you have a question about this, please raise it with the Film Project. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Huh. OK. I guess I need to read the fine print of the categories more often. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm So Sorry

NinjaRobotPirate I apologize for my mistake. It was happened by mistake and I accepted that and I assure you that you never get any fault next time. I hope you will accept my apologize. Sajid.mumbai ♥ (talk) 13.11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Hi there, thank you for your comment of Talk:Orthodox Presbyterian Church. I'm unsure how to move the comments or the RFC to achieve what you asked for and it wasn't my intention to include that whole discussion in the RFC. Could you explain how to do it, it's my first time using the template. SPACKlick (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that really long discussions tend to discourage outside output. For this reason, people often choose to break RfCs into multiple sections. For example, check out WP:RFC#Example, which has sections for a survey and discussion. Comments like mine, which express support or opposition for the proposition, would go in the Survey section. Debate would go in the Discussion section, where it could be safely ignored by editors uninterested in reading through it. I don't think it would be controversial to move both of your comments to a discussion section, but you never know when someone might take offense. That's why I suggested that you both voluntarily agree to do so. Of course, I probably shouldn't talk about cleaning up untidy talk pages; my own user talk page needs to be cleaned up, but I've been too lazy to remove all the bot spam. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've edited the talk page and will move your vote into the survey section. If you object to this please feel free to undo. SPACKlick (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks much better to me. My comment looks a bit weird complaining about nonexistent problems, so I'll probably edit it later. Or maybe not. I don't know. I'm lazy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion for Kentaro Sato

Greetings: I'm the nominator for deletion of article Kentaro Sato. My reasons for doing so were stated at this page which you have visited and where you have cast a vote favoring deletion. I felt it was my responsibility to make sure we don't delete a valuable WP article if there is any chance the subject is notable. So I carried out a quick web search and collected what I've found at the article's talk page. Since you have taken part and voted in the recent process could you take a look at the data I've gathered and let me know what you think and if that changes your position. I appreciate your help. Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 05:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Halloween

Hello, I see you revert my changes to the Halloween. I removed those four categories because Halloween is filed under the parent category Category:Halloween (franchise) which IS filed under those four categories. So, Halloween is listed under those categories twice now, once as an article filed under Category:Halloween (franchise) and once on its own. This double categorization is to be avoided on Wikipedia except for non-diffusing categories (mostly those involving gender and race). Please see WP:Categorization if you are not aware of category guidelines.

For example, if there is an article titled "Weather in Albany" it would be filed under the category "Weather in New York State" which is then filed under the category "Weather in the United States". But "Weather in Albany" isn't filed under the category "Weather in the United States" because it is already filed under the child category "Weather in New York State". Categories are built upon a hierarchical taxonomy. If there WASN'T a Category:Halloween (franchise), then it would be fine to file the individual movie under those four categories but since there is a parent category that includes all Halloween movies, we don't categorize, in addition, each separate movie under those same categories that apply to Category:Halloween (franchise) because that is redundant categorization. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Liz: For an eponymous category, it's optional whether they are removed from parent categories. For example, The Terminator, Terminator 2, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film), and Alien (film), which are all Good articles, duplicate the categories in their eponymous category. I can't offhand find any Featured film articles which do so. I'd suggest you start a discussion on the talk page. At the very least, I'm leaning toward keeping Halloween in "slasher films" because it's one of the most iconic slasher films ever made and a rare example that received critical acclaim. People are going to expect to find it there. I don't care as much about the other redundant categories, to be honest. Thanks for the note, and I hope that I don't come across as too stubborn on this issue. I'm not going to edit war over this, and I'll go with whatever the consensus is. I'd prefer it be discussed at WP:FILM or the article's talk page before we remove those categories, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Cvilleslacker

I'm fairly sure that the IP address is the same user. I've left a message on his page asking him politely to not continue to vandalize the article because quite frankly, this sort of thing can end up being career suicide if they make a huge deal out of only having positive reviews and wanting to remove any evidence of negative reviews. I'll ask for a page protection for the article, although they may say that this is too soon for protection. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your RfA support

Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your support at my recent RfA. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. Thank you for your thoughtful reply, which I felt was chock full of reality check. Anyhow, greatly appreciated. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Electrick Children

The page move of Electrick Children from AFC seems to have left categories in the article which are not visible in the edit screen. You seem to have removed one of them (2013 films) with this edit, but the other one, (English-language films), is preventing cats from being in alphabetical order. When I edited to put them in order, they appeared in order on the Preview screen, but after I clicked "Save", English-language had gone back to second place again. Do you know how to fix this? 86.41.42.29 (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks OK to me. template:filmdate automatically adds a special category, and I changed the release date from 2013 to 2012. That's why it got removed from 2013 films. The language parameter of the infobox also adds the language category automatically and overrides your placement. I gave up a long time ago trying to force the categories to display how I wanted them, and I guess I developed a rather idiosyncratic style that is unsupported by guidelines. I once thought category:American films was redundant, too, but, as you can see from my talk page, another user recently set me straight me straight on that. It's unintuitive, but consensus is that we include it. I'm not the most prolific content creator, but I'm fairly experienced -- and I still learn new things constantly. It takes a while to get the hang of all these arcane rules, guidelines, consensus-based conventions, and script-based side-effects. If that's your first article, then you did an amazing job. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Well, I guess I'm still learning too. Thanks for taking the trouble to explain all that to me. And sorry for not adding a heading to this. I was completely unaware of the omission. 86.41.42.29 (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Follow up on your opinion re Jennifer Government: NationStates's "Possible Abuse" section

You commented on Talk:Jennifer Government: NationStates, particularly the deleted "Possible Abuse" section. As a new editor, I would greatly appreciate further comment, more information, or some advice regarding this article and this issue -- particularly as I and another editor have added unanswered comments. Essentially, the "Possible Abuse" section meets WP:VERIFY/WP:RS and the rest of the article really does not. After a month (in which NS staff have commented on this issue) no new sources have been added to the original article and none are likely to be. WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS indicates that rules of NS, events on NS, announcements by the site owner, etc., are best sourced from NS itself. WP:3PARTY will almost never exist. What are your thoughts? Assuming I wish to follow-up, I assume reversing the edit deleting the Possible Abuse section would be bad form. Should I seek WP:DR and, if so, how? Thank you in advance for your time and any assistance. --Po-tee-weet (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, many people would probably consider me a hardliner on these issues. You'd probably find a more sympathetic ear from an inclusionist. You're right that not every element of an article needs to be sourced from third party, reliable sources, but the vast majority of content generally should. It not only gives us an idea of how much coverage we should give individual elements but also gives us the proper perspective. If independent, reliable sources – and forum posts are not reliable sources – do not cover a controversy, then we don't, either. Remember, just because something is true doesn't mean that it's automatically included in an article. Wikipedia really isn't the place to air grievances or call attention to wrong-doing; that's what blogs are for. Dispute resolution is generally the way to go, but I don't think you're going to find much help there; this is pretty much a textbook example of a non-notable controversy. I'll comment further on the article's talk page, and maybe we can get this article in better shape. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Barbarella

Who's "edit waring"? Not I. Simply following well established Wikipedia policy regarding "trivia", which the section in question clearly resembles. Quite frankly, it should be removed. Calling a section something it is not simply to allow its continued - dubious - presence is disingenuous (a polite was of saying dishonest). And since when does questionable "consensus" on a Talk Page that is contrary to well established Wikipedia policy trump well established Wikipedia policy? Thanks for your interest Taco Viva (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It's likely to be removed, as there's a developing consensus on the talk page to remove it. It would be helpful if you added your opinion to the talk page so that a clearer consensus could be established. If you choose not to do so, that's fine, but repeatedly reverting the edits of other users will not make the trivia section disappear any faster. It will only attract the attention of administrators. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Richie Rich's page.

Hello NinjaRobotPirate, what's good. I saw you made a lot of edits in Richie's page, apart from that, I haven't published anything by myself on any site. I just had to complete Richie's credits on some songs (confirmed) and fill all these empty information. And please explain me what Richie's page has to do with advertisements and deletion nomination. Richie isn't published on any newspaper or magazine nowadays, but his former music group "LA Dream Team" is published in a .pdf file. Thank you. I'd like to get help from you so I can keep Richie's legacy, he means so much to me.

Regards, OGmuthafkkinDoc (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! You've done good work on that article, but it has a few issues that need to be resolved. The first one is that it's a bit too promotional. Wikipedia strives to maintain a neutral point of view, where subjects are described factually and without personal opinion. Basically, what this means is that we take what professional journalists and other reliable sources say, rework it into an admittedly bland style of writing, and tell readers where we found the information. You've already mastered some of that already.

The line about "70,000 screaming fans" is a bit over-the-top, and it unduly promotes the subject. A better way to say it might be "He performed in front of crowds that numbered up to 70,000." That's just as impressive and true, but it omits the promotional language. I'd try to avoid overuse of adverbs, adjectives, and other modifiers, as they can make the article look like a fan site. Statements of fact should generally be followed by citations to reliable sources, such as professional journalists. It can be frustrating to dig up citations for stuff we know to be true, but people would not trust Wikipedia without these citations.

Speaking of which, the citations should not be to user-generated content, because we can't trust what's found on those sites. The IMDb, for example, is a useful resource, but it is not reliable enough to use as a source in a biography. The deletion discussion will last a week, though it can be extended at the discretion of the administrators. Editors will debate whether the article follows our guidelines. The most relevant guideline is WP:MUSICBIO, which generally requires reliable sources. However, you might be able to make an argument based on his early innovations to hip hop. The best thing you can do right now is to locate articles on Richie Rich located in the archives of music magazines. I hope this helps. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Richie Rich's page

AYo Ninja, what's good. Thanks for reaching out to me, I understand the problem for the reliable sources. As for the advertisements, feel free to remove anything that not decent and that's related to be considered as a advertisement. Richie may be not featured on any magazine or any newspaper yet, but he is featured with LA Dream Team through historical photos and old magazines in a .pdf files from the Westcoastpioneers.com page. I appreciate your help, I want to keep his legacy, he's an Hiphop icon to me, you know.

Third-party sources: Joe Serious CD, Album (the frontback cover is small, but he is listed in, I can't find anything apart from that) Snake Puppy of LA Dream Team personal myspace

Note that I am contacting actually the members, I can get you through magazines of 80's and 90's.

Regards, OGmuthafkkinDoc (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, that sounds great. If you can find magazine coverage on him, the Wikipedia article will definitely be saved. Two other potential source are the Google News Archive and Google Books. I didn't see anything when I searched, but maybe you can find information that I missed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

About Richie Rich's page

Hello NinjaRobotPirate, what's good fam. Recently I updated Richie's page and his production discography (I talked with him personally and that's not the complete discography yet), please, help me to remove these warning signs. I'd appreciate that, you can Richie's notability with other rappers by typing "The Real Richie Rich of LA Dream Team". I did a search to match Richie's magazine coverage, but I couldn't find anything else on Google other than L.A. Dream Teams sources. Richie may start to take interviews and getting up on reliable sources soon. Check this video on Youtube with Richie and Hip Hop legend DJ Quik together in the studio, he is notable. Thank you very much.

Regards, OGmuthafkkinDoc (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

>:(

Hi, this is the guy who created the The Possessed article. Did I ever give you permission to finish the page for me?! Don't get me wrong, thank you. But I was the one who wanted to add the cast and stuff. I should've said not to edit it.... I have tried to create millions of wiki articles but all of them have gotten rejected. And also, I wanted to be the one to add the other stuff. I will delete the stuff that you edited and the n redo it so I could feel better :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.196.59.32 (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Asdified: Uh, no you won't. If you erase everything that I added, would be vandalism. If you don't want people to edit articles you create, then make a blog. This is a collaborative wiki. I assume this is a message from User:Asdified, who created the article. Please remember to sign your posts, and, preferably, stay logged in when leaving messages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

what?

Are you spying me or somethin'??? Asdified (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Asdified: In a way. In your previous message, you indicated that you might blank a page. As a result of that, I have kept an eye on your contributions. You later blanked a separate article, and I reverted that. I'm not going to follow you around revert your edits, if that's what you're worried about. But I probably will keep an eye out for any further page blanking. In the future, please use the "add a new section" link at the top of the page. Manually adding new comments to the middle of the page makes it difficult to locate them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Maya the Bee (character)

Hi, why you do stub from this article and delete text from it? Now in this article almost none informations. Your last edit i seems that unconstructive.--Včelka Mája 2 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It was incomprehensible and full of original research. And you're a sock puppet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

And book is what? It not source or it prohibited source?--Včelka Mája 2 (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hi Ninjarobotpirate, thank you so much for your help with cleaning up referances and also all the info you left on my messages regarding Lizzie gough. Yes I am a new user and was not too sure on how to contact people such as yourself for the questions brought up / talkpage and tried to clean up everything I could so that it did not look like a resumé or for promotion as this is not my intention. I am writing on the behalf of someone else with this page and would like to say this is not an autobiography however not too sure on how to prove this. You kindly added referances/citations (which I tried to do and have more to add) to show that this page is a real person has been very helpful. Your feedback is very important as I do not want to make the same mistake as want to make it as neutral and as factual as possible (hopefully I have done this right by writing here to yourself) Do you think I should delete this page and put it in Articles for Creation now or how can I make this page suitable for wikipedia (Lizzie Gough (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)) your help is appreciated.

@Lizzie Gough: I'm glad I was able to help; I don't mind looking up citations or copy editing. You've done a good job so far, but your user name is a bit troublesome. It gives the impression that Ms. Gough herself is editing the article. If that's not the case, then I don't have a problem with removing the "autobiography" template. The first thing you should do is read our rules on conflicts of interest. If that doesn't apply to you – in other words, you have no personal or professional relationship with Ms. Gough – then you might consider changing your user name to something a bit less likely to draw suspicion. Most people are simply going to assume that you are Ms. Gough. The article is fairly well written, and it obeys our policies; my biggest problem was that someone might be trying to conceal a conflict of interest. I'm a bit ambivalent about the "like a resume" template, but the article has been cleaned up substantially, so I don't see a problem with removing it. However, it's customary to at least give some sort of indication as to why you're doing something when you make these kinds of changes. For example, in the edit summary, you could write, "The article has been substantially improved and no longer looks like a resume". That would alert other editors that you have a specific reason for removing the template; without an edit summary, other editors are left to simply guess at your intentions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You did a brilliant job...

…at the Nazanin A-J article, simply brilliant. Could you consider, at some point, similar attention at the Nazanin Fatehi article? The two personae are linked by the interest that NA-J expressed in NF, in her time of need. The sourcing at NF is substandard, in part, because original referencing at the NF article was mostly derived from articles about NA-J. Any improvements to the NF site, on par with the quality that you introduced at the NA-J article are sorely needed. Note, at the NF article, I did open and read all articles that time permitted, and moved to talk all broken links, or citations whose content did not match statements in the article. Even so, it is neither my specialty or interest, and so still needs much work. Note, I do think that both sites deserve a full citation to the Tale of Two Nazanins book that NA-J co-authored. I also believe both sites deserve a serious book review element, good and bad. These were attempted in citations 9-12 in an earlier version of the NA-J article. (The negative review, in particular, was not a good source, but it is certainly indicative of the reservations some might have regarding the attention that NA-J paid to NF. For balance, if such a good source exists, it should be identified.) Again, bravo, merci, for the hard and productive work done on the NA-J article. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for saying so, but once you know where (and how) to look, it's more time consuming than difficult. To Become familiar with Wikipedia's arcane and bureaucratic policies can take even more patience. Luckily, I can be patient when necessary. I may look at that other article, too. I agree that balance and neutrality are needed, but it's best to be highly selective about sources when one writes a biography. Wikipedia has rather strict policies on that. I did a cursory look for criticism and reviews, but I eventually lost interest and focused instead on fixing the citations, which seemed to be a more pressing issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

See my response asking for the book to come back at Nazanin? Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ninja, if you do make it to the NF article, one last note (begun earlier, but lost during a transition): The reason, at the NF site, for all the "citation needed" tags, is to mark places where an earlier unacceptable citation was removed. If you look to the Talk, you will see two things:

• (i) A series of Talk sections listing broken links, or citations otherwise seriously problematic; I moved all these to Talk out of respect for earlier contributing editors, so that these issues could be addressed. Hence, there are near to a score of "citation needed" tags that appear, stemming from these removed dead or unreliable citations; and
• (ii) Somewhere in the latter part of the Talk, (you'll see) a note indicating that I removed a translated Iranian newspaper article (from Etemaad) from the reference list, as an unacceptable source. The reason was that the translation appeared at an NF advocacy web page, entitled "save.nazanin". Tens of lines of text all cited this potentially biased translation in an earlier version of the article, and this tagged, unreferenced text remains in the NF article today. I have prompted the individual creating the NF article originally, to identify and provide an independent translation of the same Etemaad article. To date I seen no response. If no reliable source can be found for the original Etemaad material, the article will have to be gutted for that content (because it is a unique source, with quotes and factual information I have found nowhere else).

Bottom line, this is going to be a challenging article to turn around. I am not willing to do more, because at my very appearance, there are certain editors that will rush in to revert (I perceive). If the important NF article gets turned around, it will because others who are trusted to make major changes take the initiative. Best wishes. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal of JOttawa16

I have started a topic ban proposal of JOttawa16, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal to ban JOttawa16 from political articles. JDDJS (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Message Received

Can I ask why this change on Message Received at the reception, references and External links section? ALL episodes' articles of Modern Family follow that format. Thanks. TeamGale 20:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@TeamGale: Amazon.com is not a valid external link; if it's in the other articles, it should be removed. "Critical acclaim" is puffery. Unless a reliable source says that the reception was "critically acclaimed", we can not state this. Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, and other review aggregators are a good source of commentary on critical reception, but it is not for Wikipedia to synthesize what the reception was. As for changing the <references/> to {{reflist}}, that's a matter of preference and style. Changing from one style to another needlessly is unproductive; and, yes, I realize that I'm not making it any more productive. I probably should have just left that alone. You can change that back if you want. it was probably silly of me to insist on going back to my style. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. When I started adding the links I didn't have any problem or no one told me that they were not valid for WP. I am still kind of new and still learning. I'll go back and remove them in the first chance. For the "critical acclaim" I personally don't use it..only positive/mixed/negative..is that also not valid if there is no reference to the sites you are referring? Thanks again for all the help. TeamGale 21:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@TeamGale: Well, I'm a bit of a hardliner on many of these issues, and many editors will let them pass. "Critical acclaim" in particular has come under a degree of controversy; you can see a discussion in this archived thread from April 2014. There wasn't any official consensus in this discussion, but it gives an idea how people feel about it. I have advocated for a rather hardline interpretation of policy that requires people to come up with sources for any statements made about reception, but this is not universally accepted. You're probably fine saying, "It had a mixed reception" or "It was received well by critics" or whatever, but I'd avoid any loaded words like "acclaim", "hail", or "rave". External links can be contentious, and it's difficult to convince hardliners (like me) that links to Amazon.com are legitimate. In general, it's best to stick with the official site, aggregators, major databases, and maybe one major fansite. Beyond that, it starts to get cluttered. Unreliable sources that offer unique information can also be listed as external links, since they don't qualify as references. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the link with the discussion. I couldn't go through all of it but I got the general spirit and I found myself agreeing in many things. That's why I never used "big" words to the critical reception sections and stayed to "positive/mixed/negative" based on the reviews I cite below. I'll stay with those. As for the external links...I started removing the ones I added and I know about...it will take a while to get to all, wish I could know sooner but it's OK. Thanks again for all your help. TeamGale 16:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that WP might come up with a consensus on a reliable aggregator, and then agree to some criteria for its statements, e.g., if Rotten Tomatoes were chosen, one might be able to say "positive reviews" if above 65% of Top Critics, negative if below 35% of same, mixed in between; universally acclaimed if above 90% positive of same, and vice versa. 87%? "approaching universal acclaim (87% approval of Top critics at Rotten Tomatoes"). That is to say, the phrases can have meaning, if we imbue them with such. Sorry, in addition to being a very hard-headed scientific citation guy, I have also have done a little consulting with filmmakers. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Smoke 180

Hey there Bro (sis?) - I undid a revision you made for smoke180. I am not an experienced wikipedian and mostly only edit minor spelling mistakes. A heavy user, I am though, as you are, but clearly contribute more. I wanted to explain why I undid'er. I was looking the company to get it for my boy friend's mom who is a heavy-heavy smoker (on his behalf, yes he missed mothers day so to speak). My brother who was a 23 year smokers is off it thanks to smoke180. I saw them on CTV weeks ago and apparently our cousin is using it too. Now I have not read wikipedia policies but a company that truly touches my life, specially something that is going to help my family members be better, is notable, at least to me. My brother says he tried two other companies and these guys are different. I also looked up the sources and they seem all credible and say the same things i have heard of them. Just my two cents. I'm all emo just having learned that my brother has been cigarette free for exactly 60 days, the max he has gone, ever in last 20+ years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.129.210 (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I also have a similar experience. My dad was43 year smoker. I did extensive research on compamies and these guys seemed most trustworthy and NOTABLE. Anything that saves lives already has some level ofnotability. I am disappointed in your judgement and lack of understandingof what 180smoke is doing. Perhaps you don't value life as much as I do now that I see my dad and his friends switchingover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.175.145 (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice

A discussion closely related to one you recently participated in is ongoing here:

Talk:Assault weapons legislation in the United States#Move/Rename compromise

Your participation would be welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Jan Johnstone

Hi NinjaRobotPirate

Thanks for taking the time to review the article I created.  I certainly agree with you that it falls into the stub category at this point; but I have to disagree with your assessment that it doesn't meet WP's notability standards.
I only considered creating the article after verifying that the subject met the basic criteria, with independent news coverage by a local newspaper (Goderich Signal-Star^[1]), a regional radio chain (Bayshore Broadcasting^[2]), and one of Canada's three national media outlets (CBC News^[3]) and that she is the sole focus of two of the articles and shares the spotlight with her daughter in the third.  Granted, the coverage is all political in nature; but with the exception of the Rob Ford's of the world, few politicians or political hopefuls ever have (or want) any other kind.  I refer to WP:POLITICIAN which states, “…such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".”  I submit that, in this case, there is that sufficient reliable, independent coverage.
I hope you'll reconsider those factors and, if you agree, remove the {{Notability}} hat from the article.  If not then I guess the most appropriate step is to move the conversation to the talk page and RfC/BIO it.  Thanks once again for your time.  Cheers — Who R you? Talk 01:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

¹ Dave Flaherty (May 12, 2014). "Kincardine's Jan Johnstone to represent NDP in Huron–Bruce". Goderich Signal-Star. Retrieved May 22, 2014.
² Peter Jackson (May 8, 2014). "NDP to Elect Huron–Bruce Rep". Bayshore Broadcasting. Retrieved May 22, 2014.
³ "Mother daughter duo running for NDP in provincial election". CBC News. May 15, 2014. Retrieved May 22, 2014.

@Who R you?: She's a school board trustee who is running for office. That's the sort of bio that would usually get brought up to articles for deletion, but she's got a bit of national coverage. I think that at least makes it debatable, and I'm willing to let others decide the issue. Local newspapers routinely report on candidates, so a local paper isn't much help in terms of notability. If you think she's notable, then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to locate another third party source. That would be the most preferable way to solve the issue; an RFC is kind of overkill. Normally, when I tag a page with notability concerns and someone removes it, I nominate it for AfD. In this case, I'd probably just let it go. I don't think it'd be worth going through the bother of AfD for such a borderline case. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Cult Film Animation

Hello, I am contacting you concerning the addition of "The Thief and the Cobbler" on the animation section of the Cult Film page the first article cited clearly considered it to have a cult following as well as explaining its reasons for being so, did you consider there to be anything wrong with the source? http://manvsart.com/man-vs-art-episode-66-the-thief-and-the-cobbler/#.U4dQXHaAPwo

The amount added had about the same amount of information as the section had on Ralph Bakshi, do you consider it less relevant to the subject? I hope I do not come across as rude. I will not attempt to add it back on the page unless it meets your approval.

Thank you in advance Elixe54 (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Elixe54: I'd suggest you go to the article's talk page, as I suggested. There's already a discussion there. Consensus so far is that it's undue and the sources are not reliable enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

B movie

I noted that you removed a paragraph of material from B movie, regarding the Mockbuster, and the works of Bruno Mattei. The reason for the Unsourced Research of the Material. Understandable. So, I got sources and referenced them using the reference endnote system. I figured you might like to know what I did and why. The Saxon (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Saxonjf: Sprinkling trivial mentions throughout your original research that don't back it up is basically synthesis. This is a featured article, and it requires a much higher standard of sourcing than an ordinary article. I would suggest you also go the associated talk page and seek consensus for your addition. You can't just add whatever pops into your mind into a featured article; if everyone did that, the articles would get delisted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC) [slight edits for clarity on 11:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)]

We Are What We Are (2013 film).

Raised a discussion on the talkpage. I look forward to your input. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Metacritic's "normalized" scores

Despite Metacritic's claims, their scores are not "normalized". Please see WT:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 6#Metacritic's so-called "normalized" scores. Thanks. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, nobody really knows exactly what they do. I think what Metacritic does is to normalize the scores by critic and then report a weighted average. But since you raise the issue, I'll try to avoid any discussion of normalization. Who knows what they do with their black box. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right, they don't give details about what they describe as "normalize". It doesn't seem to be a simple average, so "weighted average" is probably the best way to describe it. Happy editing! 75.177.156.78 (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the link! 107.15.192.226 (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sean Scanlan

Perhaps you can explain what I did that was so offensive (see the diff here) as to warrant such an intense response. My understanding was that articles relating to individuals, topics, themes, incidents from outside North America were dd/mm/yyyy formatting. I notice you haven't reverted. Are you waiting for me to do so? I don't think it's necessary but if you choose to do so I won't touch it again. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Well, I must come across as too intense, then. I apologize for the tone of my message. No, I'm not going to revert your edit, and I don't expect you to revert it, either. The issue is that I chose ISO 8601 date format for the citations, which I generally do whenever there isn't an established date format. Some people may think it looks a bit ugly, but it's a neutral format that avoids the issue of American/European date formats, it saves a bit of space, and it's faster for me to type. It's a bit frustrating when people come in and change the citation style, date format, etc., but it's hardly something that I'm going to edit war over. There's nothing wrong with unifying dates, but it's best to leave an established style alone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. Quis separabit? 18:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Erased

Hi,

I see you noticed the removal of information on the "Eraser" page. I've noticed that the screenwriter's other credits and wikipedia page have also been unexplainably, suspiciously whitewashed. I think someone close to the screenwriter or the screenwriter himself has removed the unflattering - and real - reception to his movies. Could you have a look at the Arash Amel and Grace of Monaco edit history to see if you agree with me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.39.8 (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you're right. This IP editor has been removing negative reviews from multiple films for a while now. It looks like these articles need a close eye. I'll add them to my watchlist. It looks like there might be a conflict of interest here, or, at the very least, a obsessed fanboy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi again,

Thanks for warning the man and adding the articles to your watchlist. Unfortunately the edits have continued. I'm trying to present everything from a neutral point of view, which sadly does include the reception that the writer and his movies have received (only negative so far sadly). I've requested the Arash Amel page to be protected.

Let me know your opinions, you clearly know a lot more about Wikipedia than me (I'm a newbie!)

Thanks!

Removal of "h-llywood zap" from "list of cult films"

removal of "h-llywood zap" from "list of cult films"

Hello, Mr. Pirate...

Nice page you have here!

With all due respect, I don't think you understand the concept of "cult film." Those are movies unappreciated by the masses, with a small fervent following. Not well known, unlike hugely successful films that have been mistakenly listed in the category.

If anything, I would suggest the removal of at least 35% of films listed, since they transcend the true definition of the "cult" category, insofar as being major commercial successes.

My youngest son would inform you that, if you were to visit a a random number of fraternities in the eastern / southeastern USA states, you would find the film you removed is very popular, in which students chug beer to every "fart" sounded in the film, and I think there are a grand total of some 27 farts, so that makes for some very happy students. Now THAT is a genuine cult film!

The film also was featured countless times on USA Up All Night, introduced by such "fans" as Gilbert Gottfried and Rhonda Shear:

http://0fftheair.wordpress.com/usa-up-all-night/

I have no skin in the game, it's an old film, and I've never been able find out much info about the pervs who created it --for one thing, it appears 90% of the cast died years ago, but I got a big kick out of the thing in my younger years attending (or should I say, "partying")at college in Southern Florida. Hell, that film was doing Howard Stern before Howard Stern began to do Howard Stern!

CategorySelector3 (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@CategorySelector3: I suggest that you read Cult film. It's a rather long article (around 9000 words now), but it explains in detail what a cult film is and the controversy that exists about the definition. After writing a 9000 word article on the subject, I think I do indeed understand what a cult film is. The problem, however, is not what I think. It's what reliable sources say. Articles on Wikipedia are not based on opinion; they are sourced to professionally written articles from reliable sources. Forum posts, blogs, your own experiences, etc, are all forbidden. This is not a list of someone's favorite films; it is a list of films identified by professional journalists as cult films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I did read the article and this is my response. When John Waters first began making his films, he could not obtain any kind of mainstream reviews about his cult pictures. In fact, the mainstream journalists considered his films to be effectively pornographic. Only when Waters finally signed with a major studio distributor did the mainstream professional journalist sources you so revere finally cover the man's films. Even though Tr-ma undeniably has the largest list of genuine cult films in America today, the company has been unable to obtain much in the way of mainstream coverage. The major studios control the big media sources in every aspect, one grand collection of media whoores who must sell their souls to the major studios if they wish to work at the most renowned journalistic vehicles.

The reality is that your stated fervent philosophy is an oxymoron, as follows: "it is a list of films identified by professional journalists as cult films." Genuine cult films never gain their following thanks to "professional journalists," they gain their following through word of mouth and underground, non-mainstream sources.

Sorry but you can write an extra 9000 words on the topic, but from my perspective, you are wrong as wrong can be.

One final question: why does Wikipedia so quickly expunge material such as the listing you erased within 24 hours of its appearance, while allowing multi-thousands of listings labeled with all variety of Wiki violations and warnings (e.g. NPOV, Unsourced, etc) to rest upon Wikipedia for years and years? I still see countless listings on Wikipedia that were warned years ago they are in violation of Wiki standards, yet somehow nobody ever removes them.

So tell me...why did that particular listing of a film released some 30 years ago and placed within a relatively esoteric Wikipedia category, "List of Cult Films," find itself removed so quickly? Did one of the major studios protest strongly and alert "the troops?"

Enquiring minds would like to know.

CategorySelector3 (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@CategorySelector3: Please don't put extra colons in every paragraph. It makes your posts very difficult to read. I have edited the comment to remove the extraneous colons. I don't even know what you're talking about when you say that I'm wrong; I told you how Wikipedia works, and I'm right about that. If you have an issue with how Wikipedia works, I suggest you take it up somewhere else, because I don't make the rules. If reliable sources do not exist, content can not be added to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias do not publish original thought; they only collate information from secondary sources, such as professional journalists, books, and scholarly articles. If you want to post your own list of favorite films with your own idiosyncratic inclusion criteria, post it on a blog somewhere. Wikipedia is not the place for that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: You did not answer any of the questions raised, instead you redirected the argument into an attack upon usage of colons in my rejoinder, which is strange, given that other Wiki editors often utilize the same style. Then you proceeded to retaliate against the Wikipedia listing (H-llywood Zap) in question by expunging the following New York Times link, (that you erroneously claim to be "inactive"), but that provides the kind of mainstream legitimacy that undermines your argument, the link as follows: <http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/22797/Hollywood-Zap/overview> To reiterate, when I say you are wrong, what I mean is that all genuine cult films are born OUTSIDE the realm of mainstream media, aka Big Media, they are spawned by word of mouth and underground sources. Once they become commercial successes, if at all, then by extrapolation, they are no longer cult films and that is an irrefutable example of syllogistic reasoning.

@CategorySelector3: First, you don't need to use {{reply to}} on my own talk page. It's redundant. Second, I answered your questions that pertain to Wikipedia. I'm not interested in debating with you the definition of a cult film, because that's completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. I suggest you read Cult film, which gives a good overview of the topic and is sourced to academic papers. Third, you used colons incorrectly. Read WP:TP to learn how to use them; you are now using them correctly. Every paragraph does not get a new indentation. Fourth, that's not an article by the New York Times. That's a database entry that the New York Times licenses from AllRovi. There's an entry for every film in AllRovi; it doesn't legitimize anything. Some editors like to link to AllRovi, but I think it's redundant when we've already got a link to the IMDb. Your definition of a cult film is original research, and it really doesn't have any bearing on anything in Wikipedia. Like I said, if you don't like how Wikipedia works, take it up elsewhere. I suggest the Village Pump or the Teahouse. Posting on my user page will not change anything. This is likely my last comment on the subject. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I did not mean to ruffle your feathers, you obviously know a helluva lot more about Wiki editing procedures than I do. I am only an occasional Wiki "editor," with a focus upon films, music, biographies and politics, and typically I only check in once every several months or so, if that. In the end analysis, I respect your right to conduct matters as you choose. You have your rationale and this is your area of expertise, I accept that fact. As I stated previously, I get a big kick out of the little film in question....and of films in the "bad taste" category, it's always been one of my favorites, although I do feel it is far too corny at times...or maybe it's just that I'm now much older than when I first saw the film, so "maturity" makes everything I once enjoyed from my youth seem much more corny. Incidentally, I noticed one of the links went dead, as you sharply observed, and I believe the following link essentially replaces the original link: <http://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/133733-Twin-Galaxies-Video-Game-Film-Festival-to-Celebrate-Culture?highlight=History%27s+Video+Game+Film+Festival+Celebrate+Gaming%27s+Impact+Media+Culture> Unfortunately, I have no idea how to insert a link into a REFLIST, as I think you might have created the REFLIST, so feel free to correct the error yourself, if you choose. Finally, in conclusion, again, I suppose one other reason why that little film gives me such a kick today is that it's so inappropriate in this strict new World of Politically Correct Rules of Conduct and in that regard, as old as H-Z happens to be, that little nasty film almost seems radical by comparison to what's out there today. Best Regards.........

CategorySelector3 (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I meant to tell you one other thing: years ago, when I worked briefly for a magazine in Houston and was trying to find out more about the little film, its creators, and cast, for an article I had planned to write about comedy films in America. I contacted one of the film's distribution fellows by phone, and the guy told me most everybody connected to the film, its cast and crew, died of AIDS many years ago. Now I don't know if that's true or just some cruel dismissal of my question, maybe on account of a falling out between all concerned, but if there is any truth to it, I suppose that's one big reason why there is so little press material concerning the film???? Since you seem to know so much about all these oddball cult films, please let me know if you ever discover more info about what really happened to those involved in the thing. Thanks......

CategorySelector3 (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@CategorySelector3: You have yet to truly ruffle my feathers, but I admit that I am occasionally curt to the point of rudeness, and I am not always as patient as other Wikipedia editors. I have no problem with assisting you or helping you to learn Wikipedia's bureaucratic ways of operation, but I am completely uninterested in debates about how journalists define a cult film, how Wikipedia is run, or whether Wikipedia's policies are fair to countercultural films. These are issues that I can not resolve, and it is not conducive to discuss them. I think many journalists are ignorant, but it's not my place to define what a cult film is; blogs are where you post your opinion, and Wikipedia is where you report the opinions of reliable sources. If you have issues with Wikipedia, the Teahouse is much more appropriate venue for new users to air grievances about Wikipedia itself. Who knows; maybe your comments there could result in positive change to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I don't really know much about Hollywood Zap!. It's one of those more obscure Troma films that I've seen little information on, like Dead Dudes in the House. Even Rabid Grannies probably has had more attention than either of those others, and sometimes I think I'm the only one in the world who likes Rabid Grannies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining your perspectives on all these matters. I will close this entire matter by making just one more point worth pondering, in defense of ALL these older, PRE-internet, small films. In one sense, any non-studio film created prior to the dawn of the internet revolution, that began around the mid-1990s, generally happens to be URL links-deprived, since much of the printed material/reviews/etc. concerning such PRE-internet films never managed to make it into cyberspace. For example, I still remember an old buddy, and fellow "fan" of "H-Z," sending me a 1/2 page glowing review of the film printed by a Las Vegas Sun reviewer (whose name now escapes me)...and years later, I spent some time trying to retrieve the article on the internet, but could never find it again. I contacted the Las Vegas Sun and was informed by an editor that much of the pre-1990s printed material never was transferred into cyber-format, especially those articles written by individuals who died prior to the internet revolution. Basically, the Las Vegas Sun editor informed me that, unless the writers of the various articles were willing to oversee the transfer (from printed format to cyber format), then the paper generally never bothered to transfer such printed material into digital format. Essentially, the internet discriminates against these older films, particularly those that never had a major studio to serve as an overseer to aggregate and preserve all such PRE-internet articles for posterity. I believe there is probably more material out there about "H-Z," and many other PRE-internet films, but much of it probably went up in smoke when warehouses of printed newspapers were emptied and set ablaze, and no major studio was there to give a hoot about transferring the material into the digital realm. Thanks again.......

CategorySelector3 (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@CategorySelector3: Sites like AllRovi and the IMDB exist to catalog every single film ever made; Wikipedia does not do that. However, it's not as difficult as you might think to locate sources online. There are many digitized sources on the Internet, and some of them were digitized without the knowledge of the original copyright owner. Google caused a bit of controversy for doing that. Some archives are commercial and require payment, but some of those will give Wikipedia editors free access if they demonstrate a need for it. For sources that have never been digitized, offline sources are perfectly legitimate, and many editors use offline-only sources. If you check out cult film, you will see some of the sources are not available online. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits to the midichlorians article

Since you redirected the midichlorians article including the material and citations I added, can you please kindly add them in the sections that I added? Thanks--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want. If you want to merge the content you added to the main article, you could do that. Keep in mind that content should be sourced to reliable sources. If you can find third party reliable sources to support an article on Midichlorians, you can expand that article, but I agree with EEMIV, who rejected those sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. What I meant was could you please add the section on midichlorians in the force article. The same material that I had added but you rmeoved, please place it in the relevant section of the force article with the references in it. Thank you Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you make of this article?

What is a good way forward, here ([2])? One approach, of @User:RHaworth would be to delete, or otherwise take a machete to it. For BLP like this, is there a clear path forward? Note, tags are mine, from today, along with the talk section. Re-tag if there is a better way. Advice welcome (here). After the Nazanin, and no good deed goes unpunished, I am hands off. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't be impossible to fix, but it would be a pain. Luckily, it's not a long article. I added a few sources and moved a few from the external links into the body. It's not easy to find secondary sources on academics, as newspapers don't usually take much interest in their accomplishments. Luckily, there are occasionally specialist books. It looks significantly better now, but I wouldn't say that it's entirely fixed. It's still a bit promotional, and some of the awards don't seem as notable as Wikipedia would like. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You might have a brief look here

...at this article, [3], regarding a BLP unsourced paragraph I came across. Like the case of the earlier firestorm, I flagged this but did not delete text. (Difference being, I did not remove and repaste anything here, relative to Nazanin, and so I am clear of accusations of putting in unsourced BLP material.) Not that the House of Windsor's living members need protecting; WP quality, however, clearly does. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

There are sources out there for these affairs, but it seems that royal affairs are a license for even the most sober British newspapers to engage in a bit of sensationalistic rumormongering, though I did find one or two sources that were helpful in finding a more neutral and verifiable balance. The biggest problem is that I'm completely ignorant of the sexual affairs of the British monarchy. Many of the sources assume a level of interest and familiarity that simply do not exist in me. Still, I think it looks a little better. I'll see if I can find more and better sources without resorting to tabloids, but I think it would be easier to simply import citations from related articles, which seem reasonably well-sourced. I did a cursory scan over those articles (death of Diana, second marriage of Charles), but I didn't immediately see anything that I could use. I got embroiled in a rather nasty dispute over a controversial company, and I've been trying to work on biographies of film academics, so my time and interest in royalty are a bit limited. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Heaven Sent Gaming

Thank you for nominating my first article for AfD. I sincerely mean that. Since you marked the article for deletion, the article's really shaped up. It now covers a much larger breadth on the subject; and it's much more informative and reliable now as well. The other editors have also really helped find topics on the subject, that I didn't even know about. Thank you so much for helping, a newb like I, to become a much better editor. DunDunDunt (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes articles are greatly improved once they are brought to AfD, as it causes much attention to be focused on them. I have personally rewritten a few articles from scratch once they were brought to AfD. It is a trial by ordeal that not very article can overcome. You might keep in mind articles for creation and draft space for newer articles until you get the hang of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. They can be helpful in avoiding deletion but achieve the same collaborative atmosphere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Hi, I think your merge proposal here has been around long enough and that you should go ahead now with the merge, given that there has been no opposition. --Randykitty (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. It's a wonder that I've ever merged anything. I usually forget about them about a day after I propose them. Thank you for reminding me about that. One day, I should go through my contributions log and see if any others are still open. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your excellent work in rescuing the refs at Tom Wise with this edit. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Drama

It happens. I've been an administrator for over eight years. These things happen. At one point, I had a series of Orkut forums someone created attacking me because I kept removing their unsourced materials about how their small Indian ethnic group were "brave warriors and kings" rather than acknowledging that they were farmers and lower-tiered individuals about 1000 years ago. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious what happens now with the BLP removal of the former CEO. Both are protected and maybe the user has moved on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Yeah, I saw that. I hope the IP user moves on, but I'm not sure he's capable of doing so. I have a feeling it will only enrage him and cause him to redouble his efforts to expose those he blames. I looked over the AfD, and it seems to be moving toward a consensus to rename the article. I think that might help alleviate concerns of its being an attack article. Plus, if we refocus it on the lawsuit, we can sidestep the whole issue of who runs this company. Nobody seems to really know for sure, and I feel that naming people is a witch hunt. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, my talk page has been quiet for a few days so he may have moved on. I think he'll be back around in a few weeks. Too bad, I was hoping to delete the whole thing but I think we can police it further. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Help with incessant vandal 90.196.3.222

This user 90.196.3.222 (talk · contribs) needs to be indefinitely blocked. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully, bringing him to AN/I will result in more attention on his disruptive edits. I wasn't very hopeful about a range block, but maybe something can still be worked out. Playing Whac-A-Mole doesn't seem to be doing much. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Question

Can everyone see this who goes on to your page or can you only see this?

(talk page stalker) @Bethany Unicorn fan: Yes, anyone can see what you post here. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bethany Unicorn fan: Yeah. There are no private communications on Wikipedia. All of your edits are logged, and anyone can see them. I'm a bit strict on Bethany Mota, but that's because it's a biography of a living person and attracts so much attention. I wrote that article myself because so many new editors were trying to contribute to Wikipedia but didn't understand our rules. I don't have much interest in the subject, but I'm fairly experienced in writing Wikipedia biographies. If you can improve it, you're welcome to do so, but you need to cite your sources and keep a neutral point of view. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing unavailable links

While removing unavailable external links, as you did at the Jimmy Boyle (artist) article, may be considered salutary, care must be taken to ensure that they are in fact unavailable; because (1) external links are often (perhaps incorrectly) used as sources for an article (See Template:No footnotes), and (2) there may be alternate access available. In the case of the two links that you removed from the Jimmy Boyle article, the citation to The New York Times had an incorrect url, and the citation to The Independent used a FindArticle url instead of linking directly to the newspaper article. Both have been restored and now work just fine. If you chose not to investigate such links, it is far better to mark them as Template:Dead links and let other editors do the tedious investigations. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bejnar: Oh, please. Per WP:ELNO, dead external links are to be immediately removed when they go dead, and {{dead link}} is specifically not to be used for them. I already moved The New York Times article into the body and used it as a citation, so it's redundant to list it again, per ELNO. I added much needed sources to the article, so don't lecture me about doing research. I suggest you familiarize yourself with ELNO before you leave more notes about external links on people's talk pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, WP:ELNO says: Links to dead URLs in a list of external links are of no use to Wikipedia articles. Such dead links should either be updated or removed. It may be worth checking to see if there is a working version of the link in an earlier version of article. --Bejnar (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello - just a note re: Chris Alexander's wiki page. That article re: Hart Fisher is unfortunately a falsehood. A preview for new films in a 2012 FANGORIA magazine had a notice about the Film BLOOD FOR IRINA by Alexander's pseudonym Ben Cortman. It was not a review. The statement is without accuracy. The issue in question is FANGORIA #319. Mr. Fisher himself never saw the issue rather erroneously regurgitated information from a blog written by a former FANGORIA blogger. Unfortunate that Wikipedia insists on allowing false information through the cracks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.37.212 (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is getting complicated; I suggest we discuss this on the talk page or WP:BLPN. We can hash out what to say and how to say it. We certainly don't want Wikipedia to engage in defamation based on rumors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for wading in at Chris Alexander (editor). Long, LONG history behind the editing of that article. I'll shoot you an email and go into a bit more detail. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: Thanks for the background. Yeah, this looks quite a bit more complicated than I thought. Well, I've tried to be at my diplomatic best and suggest constructive solutions via dispute resolution. I guess we'll see if that works. When I joined Wikipedia, all I wanted to do was copy edit plot summaries and maybe write about cult films, but it seems like it's impossible to avoid drama once you get curious about that mysterious "talk" tab that beckons you with its false promises of civilized discussion and rational debate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Oy vey. I go on vacation and the whole thing explodes. I think I might bring in some others. I'll go ask User:Yunshui if he wants to come in and help. He's the most diplomatic person I know and we'll need diplomacy with this. I've tagged him, but I'll post a message on his page as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No one is allowed to take a day off, and the penalty for doing so is having to catch up on long-winded talk page discussions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You have been active at the article or talk page, so here's a note about Anarcho-capitalism

I have nominated Anarcho-capitalism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is another BLP matter you may wish to comment on

In re: professor and his wife populating his article here, tag-team: [4]. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Stephanie Honoré

Badly sourced BLP, but not the worst stub I've ever seen. I de-prodded it, but please feel free to take this one to WP:AfD. Please keep me notified if you do so. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there would be any real contest at Afd, but, as long as it's not promotional, I guess it's not really hurting anything. If I wanted to, I could probably find a few trivial mentions scattered throughout Variety and The Hollywood Reporter to fill out the references. Maybe I'll do that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GamesRadar

Hey there NRP, new sources have been found for this article - maybe you'd like to revisit your opinion. Thanks, Ansh666 04:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

(also, a member of WP:WPVG, but don't like Kotaku and never visited GamesRadar? interesting.)

@Ansh666: Oh, it's even worse than that. My list of top ten coin-operated arcade games would not include a single title by Nintendo. My opinions are idiosyncratic at best and probably a bit contrarian. I saw the new sources brought up, but they depend a bit too heavily on Future-related holdings. I might revisit the debate, but I'm not entirely sure how I feel. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, just letting everyone know. And, besides, I'm just old enough to know what coin-ops are (well, besides the classes I've taken - think of that, there are classes on video game history nowadays!), so I shouldn't really even be talking here... Thanks, Ansh666 05:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Guess who's back?

Currently trying to clean up after 90.205.211.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Dl2000 (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dl2000: It's deeply frustrating to log on to Wikipedia and see your watchlist drowning in this kind of disruptive editing. Luckily, we'll soon have a long-term abuse case filed. That should make this a bit easier to manage. At this point, I'm grudgingly willing to accept that a certain level of disruption will always be present in Hong Kong martial arts films, but I think we should try to come up with a list of high risk articles that need to be semi-protected because of blatant vandalism. For example, he is absolutely obsessed with changing sourced content to incorrect values in at least one article, I Come in Peace. The category disruption is frustrating, but it doesn't harm the encyclopedia like false information does. Once the LTA case is filed, maybe we can use the associated talk page to coordinate actions. Failing that, we seem to have defaulted to User talk:AddWittyNameHere, who has kindly volunteered to file the LTA report. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Request

Can you please stop reverting the edits that I have placed on the article about the console game, Teen Titans? I find it upsetting to go and fix these edits. What proof do you have that disclaims the fact that this game features female protagonists? The playable characters are all part of the story and are not merely sidekicks, also the article says that the game is an action-adventure game and a beat 'em up game. If you have any evidence to counter the categories that I place, please bring it to my attention. Otherwise, leave the categories that I place alone.Editor35109 (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Editor35109.

@Editor35109: No. You're a CU-verified sock puppet. Stop playing innocent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I am no sockpuppet

I have read the claims against me. I am not a sockpuppet. I am someone who just wants to contribute and be profuctive. I am not a person who is abusing the rights given to those who use this very website. I do not have to "play" innocent. I have merely tried to abide by the rules, but unfortunately, my efforts have been seen as the actions of a sockpuppet of a user who is "CensoredScribe". I do not know of anyone by this username. I can only hope that I can prove that I am just an editor, but that takes work. I understand this and I will say this. I have never been a "sockpuppet", and I wish to be a respected editor. These are my most sincere words.Editor35109 (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Editor35109.

P.S.- If it is possible, can my edits please be shown? I feel as if I had done nothing. I believe that someone is accusing me of being a sockpuppet to hide themselves from detection.

Note: user has been blocked as sock puppet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

In case I haven't mentioned this before

Hello NRP. I saw your item at AN/I about our long term (and I do mean loooong) problem editor. I wanted to give you a link to this page User:MarnetteD/Burton-on-Trent Vandal that I created some time ago in case it might be of help. It contains links to a couple other threads from even farther back. I can't remember if I ever provided this link to you before (faulty memory banks at my age I am afraid) and my apologies for taking up your time if I have. This problem editor has kind of fallen off my radar. We used to have an admin who had kept up with things but I can't remember who that was at the moment. If the name comes back to me I'll pop back by and let you know. Many thanks for you vigilance regarding this problem and for your work here at WikiP. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Thanks for that info; I haven't seen it before. I didn't realize that there had at one point been a range block. I tried suggesting that a month ago, but it was rejected as unfeasible. Maybe it would help if I can show a clear progression of IP addresses like earlier. This is certainly a prolific editor, and I am continually surprised when I see the extent to which he's willing to go. As far as the involved administrator, you may be thinking of Drmies. I saw that he had blocked the vandal quite a few times in the past. I can check with him. I think that if I could let things go, I would probably be quite a bit less stressed, but I hate the thought of this vandal running free. It wouldn't even be so bad if kept to violating the MOS, but he also likes to screw with sourced text sometimes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I know that Drmies has been of help but I am thinking of someone else. I remember other suggestions about a rangeblock but they would be too wide to be feasible - as you say. This person certainly is O/C about this and ranks right up there with BambiFan in their persistence. As you also say they often make a couple useful edits but IMO that is just a smokescreen for the damaging ones. Hang in there - maybe the item below will help a little. MarnetteD|Talk 23:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. I've been following your conversation with Drmies. Per the suggestion to point to a LTA report when reporting the IPs at AIV please feel free to use the one that I started and linked to above. Also feel free to add any work that you have done to that report. Of course you don't have to do it that way - if you have created your own LTA report you could just add the link to mine on it. I guess all these suggestions are just to help you show how far back the problem goes. On another note I've been dusting off the old memory banks and I think it was Bishonen (talk · contribs) who was helping at one point but that was months (or even a year ago) and they may not remember this either. Admins do so much, along with having lives off WikiP, that it is hard to keep up with all the stuff that goes on. Have a great weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 15:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You think your memory banks are faulty? Mine are a complete blank. Though actually, I think you may be mixing me up with somebody else in this case, as Hong Kong film articles are far from being my métier; I'm badly informed on them. Bishonen | talk 16:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for taking the time to reply Bishonen and sorry for getting things mixed up. At my age it is starting to feel like Dave Bowman is using his little screwdriver to loosen my memory chips. Apologies to you as well NRP for leading you astray. I may come up with the right admin yet but who knows. MarnetteD|Talk 16:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Feel free....

To improve what I refunded to User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/DVD Talk. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about all the delays in the LTA

Like the subject line says, sorry about the endless delaying. I'm currently editing from my boyfriend's place, not my own home, so I don't have access to a good part of my materials on the pest, but I've put everything I do have easy access to—or could find within a reasonable time of looking—in my userspace. Here, to be exact. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: @Sturmgewehr88: @Soangry: @MarnetteD: @Dl2000: I posted a first draft at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Martial arts vandal. I'm pretty happy with it, but I think I can add more information, such as dating the accounts and converting lists to tables. I don't think that's absolutely necessary, however. Better done than perfect, anyway. We can fix any issues later. I think I covered most of the important stuff, but I might think of more to add later. Sorry that I've been a bit irritable and impatient lately. I probably need more sleep before I post to ANI. Speaking of which, I've been awake for almost 24 hours now, so it's probably best that I get some sleep before I say anything else that I'll regret. I'd appreciate it if someone could look at the LTA report and make sure that it's coherent. Right now, I'm probably not a very good judge of that. Also, I'm too tired to deal with reporting the latest IP to AIV. Maybe someone else can do it if it hasn't been blocked yet. I already raised the issue at Drmies' talk page, so who knows. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks good but so does User:AddWittyNameHere/Martial Arts Film _Vandal. You two may want to put your heads together and merge your pages. You can also continue separately of course - I just hate to think of all the doubled up work. To say nothing of the time spent that I'll bet you want to spend on editing articles. Once again my thanks and admiration to you both for your efforts. MarnetteD|Talk 02:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I incorporated all the relevant pages. Might have to expand the collapsed parts to see it. My version of "relevant" is sometimes a bit minimalist compared to others, so that aspect might need to be tweaked. But I think I got all the major stuff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever little shortness, irritability and/or impatience you've directed at me not only was fully deserved but was in fact far, far less than I expected to get. Frankly speaking, I was getting extremely annoyed at myself, and I at least constantly was up-to-date on whatever progress I was making and in what way real life was interfering now. If you had decided to point a few swears my direction, I frankly speaking wouldn't have batted an eye, because I know that, real life or not, the constant delays were extremely frustrating. Add to that that you have been the main person dealing with this pest, and really... the only thing I can do is commend you on your politeness and self-control. Most people I know sure would have reacted a fair bit stronger and a whole lot less pleasant. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Breath of the Gods

Hello NinjaRobotPirate, thank you for improving the article Breath of the Gods. I believe it is safe to say that already the included collection of rare footage makes the film worth watching for people who are interested in the history of India. I appreciate your support for this documentary. NordhornerII (talk I am not a number! I am a Nordhorner. 08:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. This has been going on forever.

First, thank you for sticking your head into the hornet's nest that is the current content dispute at Oathkeeper. While the issues you've raised about notability and due weight are real, I'm very concerned that some of the other participants may turn around and go, "Well the RSN discussion doesn't count because..." (one of them has done this before). It would help a lot if you could come out and say whether you think Westeros.org is reliable as an expert source or not. Also, upon rereading your post, it's not clear whether you mean that fansites in general contain content that is too trivial for an encyclopedia or whether you were saying that you consider the specific disputed text in the diff to be trivial. (Again, we've had a lot of, "This guy really meant this," "No he meant that," "Well let's just ask him." So I'm asking.)

I understand if you don't want to spend any more time on this. It is an article about a TV show and the noticeboard fields questions about far more material matters. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: The problem with looking to RSN for carte blanche yes/no answers is that few cases are so black-and-white. The Daily Mail, for example, is highly contentious as a reliable source, but some editors like to use it for media coverage, such as interviews, announcements, and reviews. As far as fan sites go, it's more of a general statement; I don't really have any opinion about the text in question, but the site does seem to validate the statement. I'd exercise caution and restraint in citing any source that covers a topic in excruciating detail, because it's so easy to overwhelm readers with too much trivial information. Verifiability is but one hurdle that content must overcome, and there's no guarantee that what is true and verifiable will always make it into an article. That's one advantage of collaboration: peers can alert you when you've gone overboard. As far as disputes go, I'd worry about that if/when it happens. Remember that few editors are actively engaging in intentional disruption, and most people merely have a difference in opinion. It's frustrating but surmountable through dispute resolution. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I get it. Thanks for the response. It's fantastic to hear a voice that's not screaming. Most of the participants in this dispute have only dabbled in being unreasonable, but one of them is causing serious problems (details on request). But if someone brings up, "well NRP said this wasn't reliable!" or "NRP said this specific content was trivial!" is it okay if I ask you to show up and clarify that you were speaking generally? Or perhaps quote what you said on this page? Like I said, this is a hornet's nest, and it's been vicious.

It's not about "making it into the article." The content was already there. I want people to stop deleting it on what really looks like a pet peeve. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: The discussion at RSN seems to be moving toward consensus to allow the fan site. I'm not really too keen on getting more involved in this dispute. If people ignore consensus, I would suggest WP:DRN and WP:RFM. I would steer clear of AN/I until DRN and RFM fail to resolve the issue. I'd recommend against accusations of bad faith, as it frequently backfires; cynical editors will only become more skeptical when they hear someone claim to be the sole voice of reason in a debate. Also, be careful of engaging in too much back and forth bickering; it tends to discourage uninvolved opinions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You're probably right, but this has been going on for four months and people are pretty mad at each other. I think that if I'd known about Westeros and the GA articles at the beginning of this mess and shown them to the original objecting editor, he'd have gone, "Huh, okay," and we wouldn't be dealing with this now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the Kotaku article

Thanks.; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.218.118 (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha. The article is currently protected against IP editors because of your vandalism, and I will continue to fight your vandalism on that article once it expires. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Martial Arts Vandal

Thanks for the update on the Martial Arts Vandal (a name almost too good too!). I'll go with your idea. Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Respect of my gender

Hello, at one of the WP:ANI pages you commented and used male pronouns to describe me or subsequently used a comment like, 'Pretending to be something they're not'. I would like to note that I am a woman and referring to me by male pronouns by mistake, and fixing it later is perfectly fine, however given the context of the situation, I don't approve of it happening when I've made it clear several times that I am a woman. ArbCom especially has already set a precedent on this in the Manning case, where editors should respect other editor's gender identities, gender, backgrounds, and the like. I would like to be respected so I am going to ask that you edit your comment to use female pronouns. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: You are mistaken. I made no mention of gender, and you have read whatever you wanted into it. Regardless, I can edit my comment. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It was specifically this comment, where you commented that I am something that I am not to gain favorability. This is implying that I am a guy pretending to be a woman. This is not the case. Tutelary (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's tempting to continue this conversation, but it would serve no purpose. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for editing your comment. Tutelary (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Changing My Section on the article "NationStates"

I like to know why you deleted it, because it was fact about something (ie. The Shame NationStates Movement) so I am asking why in the name of God did you edit it out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clint de Henri van Hoyt (talk • contribs) 03:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Clint de Henri van Hoyt: First of all, it's not encyclopedic. Second, it's not not sourced. Third, it's undue to include minor controversies. Finally, there has been a consensus not to include this. See the Talk:Jennifer Government: NationStates for details. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Two editors collaborating on biased degrading of Wikipedia articles on ANI

Hello, I am contacting you to ask whether it would be inappropriate for me to ask you some procedural questions about the above 'case' on ANI, here:-[5]. I will interpret a silence from you as meaning that it WOULD be inappropriate, I won't watch your page, so please 'ping' or 'mention' me, if you do wish to reply. Thankyou either way. Pincrete (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Pincrete: You're certainly welcome to ask anyone for advice on any matter; it's only when you actively seek to recruit people that it becomes problematic; for example, asking someone to comment in an AN/I case because you know that they will take your side in the dispute. TParis wrote a guide to AN/I, but I don't remember where it is. You could probably find it with a bit of searching; I bet it's somewhere obvious, like linked off his user page. I think that I have a pretty good understanding of policy, but I'm not an administrator. You might want to contact one if you need more "official" help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, thanks for the reply, I misunderstood and thought you WERE an admin, which is why I was more than usually cautious about not compromising either of us. I am working at the moment, so can't ask my questions properly, but may do so later. Again Thanks. Pincrete (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, you have already said on the ANI "There's no guarantee that anyone will respond", I presume your meaning is that NO admin may take an interest, and that this MIGHT therefore simply disappear into the archives. Is there any way we can (legitimately), draw attention to it? The situation on the article has in some ways got worse, but in other ways better, in that a clear-minded editor has joined us.

If the ANI does 'disappear into the archive' what time interval would be needed before MY initiating a comment on user behaviour request - without it appearing to be forum-shopping. An additional justification on my part for such an action, is that I had already indicated my probable intention to do so, several times BEFORE UrbanVillager started the ANI. (In a way I suppose I'm asking, should I just 'sit tight' for the time being to see what happens?) Pincrete (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I found that essay by TParis: Wikipedia:ANI Advice. You might try reading that. It's not easy to publicize disputes without running afoul of policy. If it affects an entire WikiProject, you can post a pointer there. Long, involved threads on ANI that refer to a history of disruption can go either way. If the drama is well-known at ANI, people will pile on. If it's an obscure case that requires lots of reading, people will often skip it. That's one reason why I think it's generally a good idea to be concise and limit your own involvement. The longer and more involved a thread becomes, the harder it is to attract newcomers. Sometimes, creating a new subsection can help to indicate to newcomers where they can jump in. There isn't really any ban on creating back-to-back ANI threads, but it can have the unintended consequence of annoying the regulars; whether they will be annoyed into action against the target or the proposer is often up for grabs. Finally, I noticed that Joy, an admin, proposed a topic ban. If the thread archives, you might contact her for advice. She may wish to further pursue the topic ban that she proposed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks, Joy btw, I am fairly sure is a 'he' (we can never be certain can we, and I also made the same wrong assumption). Pincrete (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Chris Alexander

The sentence about Chris using those pseudonyms is unsourced. Unsourced info can be challenged or removed. He put that up there himself and is the one undoing my edits using a smart phone. You are letting Chris turn his wiki page into a personal bio page. Its bad enough you let Chris constantly remove the Ben Cortman infomartion in the past (despite it being sourced from a reliable horror news site) but now you are letting him list the fact that he writes under the Ben Cortman alias which was only exposed AFTER he was outed. That whole alias sentence should be removed since there is no citations backing it up.64.230.233.209 (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how all this became my fault. You're free to make your case on the article's talk page. Then, if you can get consensus for the change, request that the page be edited with the use of the {{edit semi-protected}} template. If you feel the information violates Wikipedia's policies, it should be easy to get a consensus. You can use an RFC to get wider input from uninvolved editors. I'm not on anyone's side, and I don't really have very strong opinions on the matter. If the article becomes too promotional, I'll fix it. If it becomes too slanted toward poorly-sourced controversy, I'll fix that, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Cult film

My apologies for any misunderstanding; there is no citation tag after the specific sentence "Films such as Rocky Horror can be misinterpreted as "weird for weirdness sake" by people unfamiliar with the cult films that it parodies", and because a) that sentence sounds oddly defensive, b) The Rocky Horror Picture Show is not, in fact, a parody, it's just a comedic story, and c) 'weird for weirdness sake' is a fairly apt description of that particular storyline, I assumed it had been inserted ahead of an actually-cited statement by a fan of the movie who felt slighted by something he or she had read about it elsewhere. Master Deusoma (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Master Deusoma: The article is meticulously cited; there are no unsourced statements, and it's is currently nominated for Good Article. Reliable sources disagree with you on the subject of RHPS, which have labeled it as a parody. What exactly is your problem with the prose? A cleanup tag can derail the GAN, and I would like to resolve this issue before the article is reviewed. I think the article is perfectly fine as is, but I guess I would say that, as I wrote it. I would urge you to explain why you have added a cleanup tag on the article's talk page, what issues specifically you have with the prose, and how you would like it improved. Seeing as how this is a Good Article nominee, this is kind of important. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Martial arts vandal

Saw your reply after I came back from dinner - but someone else has blocked them. Do you want all those new edits reverted? I do have gadgets installed to quickly revert each one if you want. Can you pick some articles that he tends to pick on, which we can try semi protection? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: That would actually be quite useful. It looks like some of his edits may have been reverted already; there are a few of us that track him. His edit wars often persist for weeks (if not longer; for example, he's been steadily edit warring/genre warring at Crime Story (film) since May 27, 2014, and the only breaks are when he's blocked). Left unchecked, he'll spread his disruption to scores of articles, which is why I wanted him blocked quickly; it takes a lot of effort to clean up after him. It's frequently easier to just mass revert all his edits and manually reinstate the ones that may be borderline constructive. I compiled a list of his most commonly targeted articles (and the ones most of risk) at the LTA report. If I had to choose just a few, I'd say Crime Story, I Come in Peace, Men of War (film), Heart of Dragon, Puncture Wounds, Don't Give a Damn, Yes Madam, and Zodiac Killers. I realize that's still a lot, but it's difficult to narrow down the list of the articles because he targets so many of them. Crime Story does seem to be his favorite target, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

45 edits reverted - that IP now has no current version in the contributions - I think that (might) send a bit of a message that, no matter what he does, it will all be changed back. Also eight pages semi-protected indef. If you see him again - do drop me a note if I'm in (usually 20:00 to 02:00 UK time - but I might be on commons or OTRS, weekends even more unsettled). Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine Is Not a Brothel

The documentary is about Viktor Sviatsky, Inna Shevchenko, Alexandra Shevchenko, Anna Hutsol, and Oksana Shachko. They should be mentioned, not completely removed. (I left it with multiple spellings as an early draft.) What's a good way of doing this ? ~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Xb2u7Zjzc32: You could use {{Lang-uk}} to show Ukranian-language text. Would that help? I'm not sure what the best way to display non-Latin names is, but I suppose you could look at Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or Solaris (1972 film). Both of those films generally use Western names and Latin characters, but they do use some native-language translations. In the end, I suppose it's up to you to decide how to handle it; you could ask WikiProject Film for advice, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I think the geographic scope should remain, since protests in Libya and France are not shown, maybe you have a idea how to do it ? ~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 08:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Mota

Don't ever talk to me like that. I did nothing wrong. Do you not know what a verified twitter is? It's the most reliable source you can get. Don't ever accuse me of doing something wrong that I did't do. Don't ever accuse me of putting unreliable sources. Learn what verified twitter is, and why it is a reliable source. And next time, have a little respect when talking to me. You are incredibly rude. Don't say that I am putting unreliable sources, and that I am the one starting in a war, when I am adding credible sources. You are the one engaging in a war, by removing reliable sources, and accusing me of adding unreliable sources. Learn respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seston (talk • contribs) 11:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Seston: Maybe you should try posting to Talk:Bethany Mota, as I have suggested several times. Or you could try WP:DRN or WP:BLPN. If you want blood, try WP:ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop being a bully towards me. Saying I'm wrong when I'm not is bullying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seston (talk • contribs) 12:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Seston: Now you're being silly. I haven't bullied you. If you think you're right, then discuss your changes on the talk page. I warned you for adding poorly sourced content, and I stand by that. The twitter account is verified, but it does not list any actual data, such as month, day, or year of birth. Even if you engage in original research to assume that the birthday is the day she posted, it still doesn't list the year. The other source is in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, which explicitly states that we can not use primary sources in a BLP. I don't know what else to tell you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	I wanted say thank you for your comment days ago over at ANI, I know at times we've not seen eye to eye but it meant a lot you defending me so thank you - much appreciated, Have a nice day :), Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I admit that I'm rather amused to be called a rude bully and then, twelve hours later, receive a civility barnstar. Although not always successful, I do try to separate content/policy disputes from personal disputes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Honestly ... From what I've seen you've never been rude to anyone as far as I can see, I honestly think the 'pedia could do with alot more kinder people like you here!,

Anyway keep up the great work & Happy Editing :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I used to be horrible. Eventually, I learned a trick: you write an uncensored draft that says everything you feel. After you get it out of your system, you delete that draft and rewrite it. It's liberating to write the draft, but you end up with a substantially more civil message. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification: RfC on Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements

The RfC: Is Westeros.org a suitable source for this content? was closed with the result that Westeros.org is reliable but that whether the disputed text was valuable enough to include should be addressed separately. The closing editor recommended that all participants in the RfC and related RSN discussion be informed that such a discussion was under way:

RfC: RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

If any of you wish to make a statement on this matter, you are welcome to do so and your contribution would be greatly appreciated. If any of you would prefer to stay away from this dispute, I think we can all get that too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

90.218.117.98

Active again after block - I saw (s)he reverted 5 edits I did after blocking - no idea if they are good or not. Rapid Fire (1992 film), Battle of the Damned, Game of Death (2010 film), New Jack City, New Jack City. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DATE (command)

Hello,

I hope I am not bothering you but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DATE (command) badly needs more input from the community. It has been relisted twice before and in spite of me having tried to publicize it before, is still at the risk of being closed without a consensus. The reason that I am calling you is that last time, I've been told to invite people that are more connected to the matter. I guess as a participant of Articles for deletion/Date (Unix), you clearly fit the bill.

Subject of the nomination is: "Wikipedia is not a manual and this article is written exactly like a man page."

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This is beginning to seem a bit like Groundhog Day, but I guess it can't hurt to repeat myself one last time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cult film

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cult film you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The lad searches the night for his newts -- The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, re the above and this comment: you may be interested in this discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Bullet in the Face

Thank you. There were a great number of inaccuracies that have been corrected, such as the origin status of the show which has been clarified, the Canadian aspect of the show coupled with it domestic waivers that were issued, not to mention a handful of spelling errors. An earlier reference that was on the page, now removed by some other user, designated the series as Canadian, which was correct, as it was produced under the auspices of Canadian content rules. Super Channel thusly receives a production card at the end. The use of inexact rephrasing and interpretation from interviews conducted for EPK footage generated incorrect information pertaining to the production, including one case of conjecture which has now been corrected. Some of it corresponded to the controversial aspects of the material. The previous version made it seem like the developer’s conceit for its reputation and that he was actively promoting that, which he wasn’t as the comment was an answer to a question, as opposed to the broadcast standards reaction to the finished execution, subsequently categorized by the PTC which has now been directly referenced. The review quotes are now accurate, properly designated between broadcast and home video reviews, and properly abridged by ellipses. Nevertheless, the reveal of the final episode’s coda constitutes a spoiler and hasn’t been designated as one. Many are seeing the series for the first time on home video or in other countries, such as FX Indonesian, as international airings are still scheduled. Hammerman Gunmetal (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hammerman Gunmetal: Wikipedia does not care about spoilers, and we do not hide them. Paraphrasing is encouraged, though it's not strictly required. Direct quotations can be helpful and useful, but they can be problematic when they are too long, as that can be construed as a copyright violation. This is usually not a concern, however. I would encourage you to look at the manual of style and familiarize yourself with it, as it addresses many of your concerns. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. In this case the use of previous paraphrasing was interpretative and misrepresented the development of the show, hence the term "developer" versus "creator" and both these terms are strictly negotiated and must be used properly for accuracy as well as legalities. As far as the DVD Verdict review that was previously and confusingly truncated, the proverbial closing statements that all reviewers offer for their "verdict" accurately encapsulates the review. In this case, despite significant qualms, the reviewer quizzically proclaims "not guilty" and therefore recommends the DVD. The closing statement is the same length, but a more accurate representation of the reviewer's reservations without forced abridgements. Hammerman Gunmetal (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Indie Rights

Indeed you are "the one who added the Variety sources" to the article. Somehow, I neglected to thank you for it. So, thank you for it. :D —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

... and (D'oh!) for your vote at the AfD as well.

Very briefly: as much as I'm trying to not accuse Spshu of argumentium ad ignorantium, the reasoning is absurd (unless I'm missing something, "two Variety articles and that's it, so even if they pass WP:AUD they cancel each other out" [I'm paraphrasing] is its conclusion). As iffy as some of the sources tend to read—and, by the way, right beneath WP:AUD (which the editor likes so much, absent evident research), WP:ORGIND notes that, "[o]nce notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content"—each has its purpose. As you note, Madison played lead in one of his own films, so a Film Threat review fits; Jerome Courshon, Stacey Parks, Emanuel Levy, et al., describe how IR does what it does and why it's pioneering (though no one I've yet found ever actually says so); and most of the remainder either demonstrate that the films themselves are notable or that IR actually was their distributor.

Film distribution seems an odd animal, at least within my research; almost no accountability to prove per WP:INHERITORG when it was because of the efforts of a distributor that a film gets noticed in the first place. That's why this article has been far more of a headache than I'd anticipated when I agreed to do it. Still, getting free-use images with perhaps many more to come? Yeah, it's worth it. :D —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@ATinySliver: I've run into people who don't like trade magazines before. I'm not an inclusionist, but that's always puzzled me, as I can't really think of any better source. Normally, this comes up in film and technology articles, where it's difficult to source specialist topics. You can find archives of Variety and The Hollywood Reporter at Google Books and Highbeam Research, which does help somewhat. I still think that it's debatable to include film reviews, and I wouldn't really count them as establishing notability unless they actively discuss the distribution, which at least one did in depth (the Metroactive one, if I remember correctly). Obviously, I don't think that it's as bad as Spshu says, but more sources is always good. I'd say it's probably safe for now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Much obliged. I'll keep that in mind as I get time with the article. Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Spshu

A perusal of this editor's talk page and history was telling; here is a serial edit-warrior and drive-by tagger who does not appear to have learned from the concerns of contributors. I always hate running to the playground monitors, so to speak, but ... xD —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Hi. Thanks for your offer to help. As you can see, I'm a total newbie. Here's what happened. I noticed the request on Wikipedia to upload photos for properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Well, we used to own one in Vermont, and did a big "labor of love" restoration in the 1980s. It's a 1790 Federal House with lots of history. Sooooo, I opened an acct, uploaded a photo of the house and wrote a description for The Galusha House, Jericho, VT. That went into the big database of all listed buildings which I believe is in the "Commons."

Next, I noticed a new page generated in Wikipedia proper with the same title. It said, this article does not exist, it you'd like to ...... I'm sure you understand. So I pulled out all the source material and wrote the article you see. Tell me what you think. Is it ok? Are there enough refs, and do they need to be more consistent? Are my refs about "conversations," etc. ok, and if not, how do I include that kind of stuff, which is sometimes the only source for certain important facts....it's just not a document, but it is fact from an expert. Anyhow, it's plenty long now, I think, but if Wiki would like more detail, more sources, etc. I can do that. Let me know what you think...and did you put that photo in place for me? All I can say, I've done some coding in the past, but I've never had so many help pages to sort through! I really like it though. One of my concerns here is that I am the former owner of this house, and don't want to annow the current owners or use my name, except in the ref I added about "the Allen family" since I had no other way to document that information. When I was doing the Natl. Register thing, I clicked somewhere, and raised a really nice guy who helped me with an email. He was very encouraging and polite. Like you are. Hope to hear from you. If you like, here is my regular email: FLVT123@gmail.com.......Ray Allen— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueridge12 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Blueridge12: The article is looking better every time I load it. I think you're doing a great job. Personally, I like to use citation templates. They're a bit more complicated at first, but they're very powerful. You can see a really long help screen at Wikipedia:Citation templates. Probably not too many bother to read those help pages, and I guess I don't blame them. The quick-and-easy version is: {{cite web|url=http://example.com/|title=This is my title|last=lastname|first=firstname|work=example.com|accessdate=October 25, 2014}} And then, you'd just substitute your text for example.com or whatever. Of course, you don't have to use them. Many people don't.

I struggled with the exact same concepts as you when I started writing articles, and I couldn't find any help at all for how long a page should be, how much detail it should have, etc. I guess it's a matter of trial and error, experience, and feedback. One place to ask for feedback is the relevant WikiProject, such as WikiProject History or WikiProject Vermont. Another good place is the Teahouse, Help Desk, and the article's talk page. The other big issue you raise is what we call a conflict of interest. Honestly, if you ask me, you are fine. You could always ask other editors at the conflict of interest noticeboard what they think; if you do, let me know, and I'll comment, too. Personally, I wouldn't bother. One problem I see is that you may be using original research. This is when Wikipedians perform their own research or analysis, and we don't allow this. For the purposes of verifiability, we require that research be published in reliable sources. This doesn't mean that the information has to be online or free! It can be from old newspapers that are not available online, books from the library, or academic journals. I know this all kind of complicated and bureaucratic-sounding, but it's actually not so bad once you get used to it. Admittedly, this does take a while.

One last I'd recommend is that you be careful about giving out personal information. You never know who will see it, and sometimes it comes back to bite you, through no fault of your own. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I hate to add to your reading material, but I did think of a few helpful pages: Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:A primer for newcomers, Wikipedia:Writing better articles, Help:Introduction to the Manual of Style, and User:Tony1/Beginners' guide to the Manual of Style. Of course, if you need help or advice, you can ask here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joni Ernst

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joni Ernst. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Re : Sorry

It's okay. I understand that.. sometimes Wikipedia make us stress too. Especially when we facing many vandals out there. — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ^ʜᴜʜ? 06:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello NinjaRobotPirate:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Reply re Quebec Writers

This is the first time I'm using the talk page--I hope I'm getting my message to you!

Thanks for your inquiry. I completely understand why you wrote to me, so no need to apologize.

The entries on Saturday were made at an event organized by the the Quebec Writers' Federation to start entries about notable women writers from our province. We plan to develop and encourage others to develop the entries we started. A committee from the organization developed a list of about 20 such writers who we felt met Wikipedia's criteria for notability and set to work for a few hours on Saturday to give instructions and get started. The people doing the work were volunteers--some writers, some not--but they were not writing about themselves and they had to choose a name from the list the committee had developed. The problem is, we are all novice Wikipedia users, so it may be that things weren't done correctly. I'd REALLY appreciate your suggestions as to how I can shore up any sub-standard entries.

Lschub56 (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lschub56: Thank you for the explanation. Unfortunately, some of us have become a bit cynical (and even paranoid) over the years after having been exposed to almost endless amounts of promotion, hoaxes, and vandalism. Some corporations have even hired unethical individuals to whitewash their representation on Wikipedia, which, as you can imagine, runs contrary to several policies. I'm glad that your group has decided to improve Wikipedia. From briefly looking at the articles, I'd say that there are a few general improvements I could suggest:

• Inline citations make it easier for readers (and other editors) to identify which citations cover what statements. For example, Writer X received a positive review for novel Y from Newspaper Z.<ref>Citation to a review from Newspaper Z</ref>.
• None of the biographies that I read looked promotional, but they could use a bit of editing to be more matter-of-fact and specific about which awards have been won, for example. Instead of Writer is an award-winning author, you'd say Writer X won Award Y<ref>Citation for award Y</ref> and Award Z.<ref>Citation for Award Z</ref>. This helps to maintain the neutrality of the article and assure our readers that they are not reading biased material.
• Our manual of style disallows embedded links to external websites in the article body. Instead, they should be converted into footnotes using <ref></ref>, moved into a section called "External sites", or turned into internal links to a Wikipedia article. If, by your judgment, they are not likely to satisfy our notability concerns, then do not link them. If you think the topic is notable, then it's perfectly legitimate to link to an article that does not yet exist. This is done by using square brackets: [[Wikipedia]] links to the article on Wikipedia.
• Categories are very helpful. At the very least, you should include Category:Living people if they are alive. Other categories of interest include Category:Writers from Montreal and Category:Writers by award. You can also categorize them by genre, among other things.

Let me know if I can be of assistance. The Teahouse and Help Desk are very useful forums where you can ask questions and get advice. Also, you might be interested in a few WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Quebec, WikiProject Feminism, WikiProject Novels, and WikiProject Gender Gap Task Force. I was going to edit the articles myself to fix a few minor issues that I highlighted here, but I was a bit overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of articles were being rapidly created. If you'd like, you can list them somewhere (say, here or in your sandbox), and I'll try to remember to touch them up. Overall, they look fine to me. And, yes, you're doing just fine; don't worry too much about breaking stuff or making mistakes. You're already doing better than many of us did when we first joined Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for this nice and incredibly useful message. I've sent it on to the others who made entries on Saturday and asked them to go back to the pages they added when they can and try to improve them. I will do the same with mine, and even follow up looking at theirs (I'm the Executive Director of the organization, so I feel responsible for this whole project, and for doing it well. I may eventually send you the list of articles, but I would like to give people a chance to improve them first, if that makes sense. That way we'll all be better Wikipedia editors sooner. Thanks again. Lschub56 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lschub56: Sure, I understand. There's a satisfaction to learning something yourself without having others do it for you. I probably should have mentioned this earlier: to add a category, put [[Category:Living people]] (for example) at the bottom of the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paul LePage

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Paul LePage. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello NinjaRobotPirate:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Some stroopwafels for you!

For your edit on Mansplaining EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Candyman (film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''''Candyman''''' is a 1992 [American [[horror film]] written and directed by [[Bernard Rose]], based on the short story "[[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Clemson–South Carolina rivalry

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Clemson–South Carolina rivalry. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Problems with edit wars

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, unfortunately I believe you missed address because I'm one who was argued on talk pages while User:Underlying lk has been only reverting. Regarding this particular case I even copy-pasted law from official parliament website, but his user is still forcing obviously fake claims. What to do with it? --Qizilbash123 (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)