User talk:NinjaRobotPirate/Archive2016

This is an archive of past discussions about User:NinjaRobotPirate. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

In reference to your comment here, I did not mean to violate any copyright in this edit. Can you explain? Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 12:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Caballero1967: The problem is that you linked to illegal copies of the works you cited: a copyrighted book hosted on Google Drive and a journal article on Scribd. You can't do that. Sometimes Google Books has legal snippets of works, and you can link to that. But if you find some random website that links to the entirety of a copyrighted work, don't link to that. I'm not quite sure what else to say. If you don't understand how copyright works, you could try looking for a online primer. A quick and easy rule is to never link to something uploaded by a random user. Why would a book publisher allow some random Internet user to legally upload the entirety of their copyrighted work, which they sell? It doesn't make any sense; thus, it's obviously not legal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks for your generosity with time. My contribution followed another logic. It is a fact that authors put their own work available on the Internet. And while you might argue that it goes against the publisher's wishes, authors also hold rights. This is more common in regards to scholarly articles and chapters. Look for example at academia.edu and what the authors have made available there or have linked to places like Google Drive and Scrib where their works are accessible-- which is where I found the ones I posted. I took the time to look and chose the sources available on the WEB for readers to have a better grasp of the subject. I have done this every time I have been lucky to find these documents. Yet, I do not mind if you have a problem with that; you are the first one to have reacted in this way. Perhaps I should look for smaller pieces and explain the procedure so others would not react in the same manner as you did and just erase the energy and time spent on improving the article. Thanks for the lesson. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 13:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Caballero1967: I wish it were always like that, but it's usually not so noble. Most of the time, these are flagrant copyright violations. You should be careful, because there are real-life legal ramifications to this; people have been sued over it. You should look at WP:ELNEVER and WP:LINKVIO. These are important Wikipedia policies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I was not kidding nor being sarcastic when I said thank you "for the lesson." Thanks now for the links. Cheers, Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 13:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ninja, the article was such a jumble of errors that I decided to do a lot of revisions, including making the citations easier to understand. I know the changes might be an issue, but I thought the changes might benefit the article. Tell me more about the proper formatting for the infobox. If infobox film says to use plainlist, it looks really clumsy compared to simply separating a list by br. Is it a prerequisite to use plain list? as I have done a lot of articles the other way. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bzuk: All articles generally should use {{{plainlist}} for formatting in the infobox. Certainly, one shouldn't strip the proper formatting from them. One thing you could do is to raise the issue using plainlist WT:FILM. WikiProject Film has always struck me as very reasonable and open to debate. I didn't like plainlist at first, but then I grew increasingly fond of it. Using embedded linebreaks now strikes me as a bit clumsy. As far as changing the formatting of citations, that's something that can get people blocked, due to longstanding drama. If I were you, I wouldn't ignite that fire. Personally, I very much like citation templates, and it kind of annoys me when my citations are converted to a different format, but I try to avoid edit warring over something so silly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ninja, thanks for your prompt and helpful reply. I did post on the talk page for the plainlist use in infoboxes. I see your point about citations but heartedly disagree, as it almost always, is a matter of the "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome. Citation templates were only formatted in one style, the APA guide, not the MLA format that nearly all the social sciences including history use in the "real world". The templates were there as an aid waaay back when I started in the Wickwackyworld, and were never mandated, as even today, they are still "buggy". When there is an average of two or more mistakes made in a reference or bibliographic notation, I find it easier to "write out" the data. To allay your fears that you are talking to a Luddite, I have been a reference librarian for over 30 years, and am familiar with nearly all the current referencing guides. I also act as an editor and sometime author. As a librarian, I used citation and bibliographic templates based on publisher-supplied MARC records, as well as Library of Congress MARC records, but these were nearly always "bulletproof". In retrospect, I have seen many of my articles rewritten with citation templates abounding, and it is, like you alluded to, irksome, but generally means, if the stuff is correct, I just move on. As to plainlist, I have now used it for the last two days, and although more work to write out, it's not as much a bother as I thought. Nice talking to you. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello NinjaRobotPirate, I don't know if you will remember me. You had helped me edit Wolfgang Burmann, an article I wrote. You also left a note on my talk page congratulating me on another article I wrote, about Carlos Suárez (cinematographer), which I wrote after understanding editing nuances from your edits. Today I got my first good article. I am leaving a note on your talk page as I just wanted to share with the editors who have helped me settle in. Thank you for your initial help. It was really helpful. Xender Lourdes (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Xender Lourdes: Wow, that's really great! You've learned much faster than I did. It took me almost seven years before I wrote a Good Article. You'll probably be an administrator before I get around to writing a Featured Article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. I don't think so. Although I am currently creating a list I plan to nominate as a Featured List in some time. Xender Lourdes (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

But why are you not an administrator? Xender Lourdes (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Xender Lourdes: I think about it sometimes. In the end, I usually decide that it's more fun to contribute than administer. There's still so much to do. There's a really great artist, Eric Joyner, who makes paintings of nothing but robots and donuts. His article is currently around 100 words long. I've been meaning to expand it for almost two years now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the mess at Gotti (1996 film). Of course I didn't mean to revert your edit; hadn't noticed there was that new edit in the history after the edit-war with the IP editor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That's kind of what I figured. I've done the same thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This is one of most simplistic bits of mindless rote that I've seen here. We could have 'bot scripts give a more useful comment than that. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit on The Beast Within?--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Already replied on your talk page. I guess I was a little too slow. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There is an article that I have been watching for a very long time on the 1982 horror film Humongous which is in a state of severe disrepair and poorly developed. Unfortunately no one has been able to fix and expand it. So I was wondering, besides WikiProject Horror, where I should try to find someone to expand it or help me expand it?--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: Despite being pretty dead, WikiProject Horror is still your best bet. I can't really think of anything else offhand. Unfortunately, there just aren't that many editors who work on older, obscure horror films. I can try to look for sources, but it's often very difficult to find anything online for these films. There are a few options available via the Wikipedia Library, which grants free access to subscription-only sources. The one that's been the most helpful to me is Wikipedia:McFarland. They've published many books about obscure horror films, and I've been meaning to request more e-books from them. If you checked out their website, you might be able to find a few that look useful to you, too. It looks like they're still accepting new requests. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll work on the article later. For now I am working on the article for I Drink Your Blood. I am still needing some people to help me with finding more sources for it. You can take a look in my sandbox and see what I have so far.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me about this. I will try and keep that in mind in the future. Have a good day! Arbero (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Arbero: Thanks for your work in helping to expand reception sections! It's not a major deal to add that a film received positive reviews, but it's been a constant issue raised at WikiProject Film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear NinjaRobotPirate,

Appreciate your vigilance on the wikipedia page, Oklahoma City University, on removing one of the recent edits, which was uncited.

Please see below the lists of media coverage on the personnel, Herbert Sim, who was listed on the 'Notable Alumni' list, prior to your removal:

• In November 2015, founder of WardrobeTrendsFashion, Herbert Sim, was seen receiving "Best Lifestyle Website" and "Best Lifestyle Mobile Service" awards at the 2015 Asian Digital Media Awards by World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA)^[1]. The photo is hosted on PR Newswire^[2].
• In March 2015, WardrobeTrendsFashion's founder, Herbert Sim, was featured on Mediacorp Channel 5's TV programme "Made in Singapore #SG50" which was also replayed on xinmsn's catchup TV^[3].
• In December 2014, The New Paper featured a full-page interview with WardrobeTrendsFashion's founder, Herbert Sim, which was republished on AsiaOne^[4].
• In August 2014, My Paper ran a full-page featured story with WardrobeTrendsFashion's founder, Herbert Sim^[5].

Please advise if this is 'notable', and if so, to advise on the next steps to relist on the page, and/or undo the changes.

Sincerely,

Herbertrafael (talk) 12:21, 25 Jan 2016 (UTC+08:00)

---

WP:ALUMNI is generally used to determine who gets listed in alumni lists. The most commonly enforced criteria are that the person must satisfy the WP:GNG and have an already-existing article. Press releases are not reliable sources, and interviews are often a contentious source of notability. If you are Herbert Sim, or you are financially connected to Herbert Sim, you really shouldn't be editing articles about Sim or his businesses, as you would have a conflict of interest. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The person, Herbert Sim, does meet the WP:GNG criteria, with verifiable evidence with notable independent WP:NRV, reliable sources of media coverage - full-page interviews on the Singapore newspapers The New Paper and My Paper, and online news platform AsiaOne. More importantly, to highlight, the interview on MyPaper was focused on Herbert Sim being a notable alumni of Oklahoma City University, which is the exact topic here.

If you are questioning the newspapers and news platform's credibility and notability, maybe you should propose for deletion those wikipedia pages too then?

Also, whether or not, i'm financially connected to Herbert Sim, it is a personal matter, it is an accusation, that is becoming a personal attack and harrassment should you wish to pursue this ground. E.g. If my username was something else, would this question even came up? WP:PERSONAL We are here to contribute knowledge (with reliable evidences to support the claim) for a better Wikipedian society.

Herbertrafael (talk) 08:46, 27 Jan 2016 (UTC+08:00)

Hi, NinjaRobotPirate. I'm very suspicious that Ninjo2 (talk · contribs) and Faster2010 (talk · contribs) are the same person but back in October, we didn't present evidence that wasn't strong enough at the SPI and most of the matter was stale. However, Ninjo2 resumed his disruption back in January. I'm thinking we should create something like an incident record regarding the edits and editing behavior so we can file a possible long-term abuse report if the disruption continues to have this user's edits permanently prevented or to present it at an SPI if it's possible. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sjones23: I don't think there's enough disruption or evidence yet for an LTA report. Usually, people need to be site-banned before that's considered. WP:ANI would be a better place to request action, but I don't think there's enough disruption for that, either. Sometimes you just have to put up with it for a while before there's enough evidence. If you want to collect evidence, you could create a userspace page. I did something like that at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Socks, which collects some info on disruptive IP editors. You need to beware of WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:POLEMIC, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand. Given that the IPs that I have listed in the SPI investigation all geolocate to Nashua, New Hampshire, I suspected that it was the same person, hence my intention to create a user space page for factual evidence in preparation for an SPI should the behavior continue (no personal attacks intended) as with Skyerise on User:Skyerise/IP incident record. One example of collecting evidence that I did was for the banned user G-Zay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which can be found here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sjones23: Sure, something like that G-Zay page could work. But I would be careful of reverting Ninjo2 for block evasion when his account is not currently blocked. Unless you have proof that he's evading a block, you could end up accused of harassment. Since the SPI was closed without connecting the two accounts, it's probably not obvious enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

All right, I've created User:Sjones23/Faster2010 to document the sock puppetry for future reference. I'm going to connect the dots as much as I can for a possible WP:SPI if the behavior does not end in a timely manner. Basically, the ISP is Comcast and is located in Nashua, NH, so I'm planning to go through the contributions of the ISPs in question and find similarities to these users in related articles. I have no objections if you are willing to help out. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sjones23: Looks good so far! If I see anything, I'll add it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I also found a few redirects related to the situation: Akira: Tetsuo's Edge and Winx Club: The Lost Princess. I think those are unreleased video games or films and they both fail WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL at the very least. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion for my brainstorm session on how to improve production section seems to have dried up, realistically I think we're pretty close to deciding on the outcome I'd value if you could provide some feedback, specifically with my proposal on what we should include in it. The discussion can be found here.--Deathawk (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Deathawk: I thought about trying to get the discussion restarted, but, like last time, it seems like we get deadlocked in minor details pretty easily. I don't really know what to say except that maybe we've got enough discussion and input for a formal RFC at MOS:FILM. But I can reread the thread and see if there's something I can add. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: That's my next course of action, however for right now I just went to everyone talk pages and placed a meassage inviting them back to the discussion. My fear is that if I took it the MOS now it would seem that I was going behind there backs, and I do want it to be a consensus. I also know that in some cases we'll have to work with the users for clean up if this proposal goes through, and I don't want any bad blood there. But yeah if I don't get any responses by next week I'll start a RFC. --Deathawk (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, good point. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have been adding, but I do notice geolocation differences, and even (nearly) simultaneous or overlapping edits. I'm fairly certain there is more than one of these individuals adopting this tactic. Is my method of reporting adequate, or should I hold off and wait for more instruction? I have not added the most recent I have seen (86.159.93.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) because of a different target, and different geolocation. Scr★pIron^IV 19:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV: It's possible that a web forum for animation enthusiasts decided to add their dream cast to Wikipedia's articles. I would keep adding the "possibly related" IPs but keep them separate from the main Australian IP addresses for now. Given the relative lack of skill at wikicode, I doubt we're dealing with someone who's technically skilled enough to understand how to use worldwide IP addresses. I might have to change that page to focus on the phenomenon of animation hoaxing itself if more of them show up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps a separate page for the phenomenon, and maintain what you have for this specific LTA? Just a thought. In the meantime - with your permission - I will add any of my entries which are not confirmed to Australian IP's to a separate section for your analysis, so that you can include them as you see fit. Scr★pIron^IV 19:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV: Yeah, that sounds like a good idea; add as many as you like. I'm glad whenever anyone else takes an interest in this stuff. It means that I can slack off a little and spend an hour to create an article instead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

As you know I'm relatively new here. I need help report a user who keeps vandalizing the same page. The user is Jacob Page he doesn't have userpage. Please respond or report him asap. Thank you {{Wanheda (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)}}

@Wanheda: It's difficult for me to tell what's going on in that article, as I don't know anything about the TV show. It looks like someone else warned him for vandalism just two weeks ago, so you could try contacting the admin who did that, AnemoneProjectors. Or you could ask for help at WikiProject Television. There are some helpful people who hang out there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ninja. How are you doing? I thought I'll drop by to share with you that one of my articles Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851 is on the main page (DYK section) today. This was the Good article I was mentioning to you some days back. I also wanted your review of two articles on a particular area. I have written Cottalango Leon and Rahul Thakkar and wanted to request you to do a check on a narrow area – plagiarism/copyvio/paraphrasing. You may have experience in these areas, so your inputs would be invaluable. Thank you and keep up the great work (I posted a barn star this morning at the Help Desk; it applies to you too). Xender Lourdes (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Xender Lourdes: Wow, getting on to the main page is pretty awesome. Sure, I can look at them. I'm trying to track down a really sneaky vandal, so I might not be too in-depth. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :) Xender Lourdes (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking at Leon's article. I've found a few places to perform minor copy edits. Some of the wording is a little closer than I'd prefer, but I think it's fine. But I would paraphrase those long quotations at the end. Something like, Leon said the award was "not totally unexpected" but that "it feels good to be recognised". I usually don't like to quote more than sentence as a general rule. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, if I changed anything, I'd paraphrase the longer quotations down to just the most important details. It feels kind of like a press release when you've got long quotations from multiple people about an award. For the other stuff, it follows the source, which is good, but I guess I favor a slightly more creative rewording. It's not a big deal, and I've been told that I'm a bit too strict about this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the lovely edits. You're very thorough. I'll follow your guidance on rephrasing and try my hand at that. Thanks so much for the advice. Xender Lourdes (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I cut out a considerable part of those quotations and reworded wherever possible. This is a good learning experience. Thank you again Ninja. As usual, you're the best. See you around later. Xender Lourdes (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

One last request. Do you think you would be able to do the GA reviews for Rahul Thakkar and Cottalango Leon? Given that you've gone through the articles and are only a minor contributor, it would be easy for you to find out whether they qualify on the GA criteria or not. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Xender Lourdes: It wouldn't hurt to find a free-use pic for those articles. I usually prefer to edit than perform GA reviews, and I've been keeping myself a little busy lately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

No problems. Thank you and see you around. Xender Lourdes (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you write the plot summary for Nina Forever yourself, or did you copypaste it from somewhere else? --89.0.224.67 (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I wrote it from scratch based off of what I read in the reviews. I'm surprised at how many Google hits that text gets. I guess my synopsis is pretty popular. It might be easier to write a new one, though, if people are going to ask me whether I copy-pasted it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Betty X is an influential female musician, conceptual artist, and songwriter that first made her impact in Seattle during the 1990's. She has been described by Seattle publications as a "Dangerously sexy blend of poisonous and volatile apocalyptic-metal with sarcastic aggro female vocals." Betty X has become one of the most recognized names in conceptual art, post-apocalyptic rock - not just in Seattle, but in Austin and Los Angeles, as well. She continues to be a powerful influence for female singers/songwriters/artists/musicians and participates on many panel discussions and appearances along with Patti Quatro and others, in addition to her live performances and collaborations with such bands as Ministry and Pigface.

Betty X is currently gearing up to release her fifth solo album, which is being co-produced by the legendary Al Jourgensen of Ministry fame, confirming her presence as a current and relevant musician. This article supports the claim that Betty X has played with Ministry, ^[1], and removes any question of the claim's validity.

This article ^[2], as well as this book excerpt, ^[3], confirm and validate her work with Martin Atkins and Pigface: Tour Smart.

From her first band, Salon Betty, which performed with Alice In Chains and other influential Seattle bands, to being featured on the new Surgical Meth Machine (Al Jourgensen's new project) to be released April 15th on Nuclear Blast records, Betty X continues to be relevant in the music industry.

Betty X is affiliated with Salon Betty, Satan in High Heels, Ministry, Pigface, Sheep on Drugs, and Surgical Meth Machine. She has current websites and fan pages including ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8]. It would be a detriment to the history of female artists and musicians, as well as the history of post-apocalyptic rock, music in Seattle, etc.

With all due respect, I am requesting that this page, which has been active for over 10 years, be fully restored. Any claims that were deemed to be without validation will be updated, as well as any other pertinent information. Not only does the removal of this page have an impact on booking agents, etc., to research Betty X, but it also hinders the education of younger generation conceptual artists, musicians, singers, and songwriters.Terivangogo (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI NRP this thread Wikipedia:Help desk#Deleted.2Fremoved article - Betty X has already answered this persons questions. I have directed the to WP:DRV as well. Cheers and enjoy your week. MarnetteD|Talk 21:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Terivangogo: MarnetteD is right that you could pursue deletion review, but it's likely to be a waste of your time. Instead, you might consider going through our articles for creation process. This also is likely to be a waste of your time, but if you can show that Betty X satisfies our inclusion criteria, the article will be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi NRP. What do you think about hatting the post this person made at Talk:Betty X. I was going to remove it since it was unrelated to the person that the article was about but then DG responded to it. IMO it is a tangential bit of WP:CANVASS and smacks of WP:SELFPROMOTION even if it isn't her making the posts. Whatever you decide is fine with me. BTW I have a long time friend who plays the guitar at small venues all over Seattle and she hadn't heard of Ms B. Now I'm not mentioning this to be perjorative - I just think it is a good example of how big Seattle is and how many people/bands play there. MarnetteD|Talk 01:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I had the same thought about promotion, but I was also cautious about hatting it after I saw DG had replied. Since we both came to the same conclusion, I think it's probably warranted. I'd be surprised if this article came back. As a fan of the genre, I spent a bit of time searching for sources when I saw this come up at AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your thoughts. Another possibility is to wait a few weeks and then archive it - if my memory banks don't get too dusty and forget that is :-) MarnetteD|Talk 03:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, too late now. Well, hopefully it won't cause too much drama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Good call on your part. I appreciate you taking the bull by the horns. MarnetteD|Talk 03:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I always figured Twinkle was probably good enough, but this could make life a little easier. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I moved the article over the old draft and then undeleted the history, so I think it should all be good now. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That was really weird. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I understood its reversal, but look at these page Dakota Fanning (critical success, money and fame), Angelina Jolie (Breakthrough, International success]], why not put in Elisha Cuthbert? Thank you Sabio utilizador (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Just because some articles do it doesn't mean that another one should. This article, Elisha Cuthbert, is under pending changes partly because of promotional editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not say that just because one did the other must, just wanted to say that it is rather vague:

1994-2000: Early Works,2001-03, 2004-07,2008-09, 2010-present.

And if put: 1994-2000: Early Works, 2001-07: Breakthrough, 2008-10: Adult roles, 2011-13: Happy endings and 2014-present: One Big Happy and other projects. Sabio utilizador (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's vague at all. I also don't think we need to break her career into so many chunks. But this should be discussed at Talk:Elisha Cuthbert. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

That career part I also agree, just put just that: 1994-2000: Early work, 2001-06: Breakthrough, 2007-10: Adult roles, 2011-present: Happy Endings, One Big Happy and other projects.Sabio utilizador (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, you could take a doubt?Wade Jones (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The article for the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre needs to be cleaned up and expanded.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: You mean The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003 film)? I've seen much worse articles, but it could probably use a bit of work, especially more sources. I bet I can find some more citations. I think maybe I can find some positive reviews, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I was just thinking of it compared to the other article on films remade by Platinum Dunes, when compared to that it seems poorly developed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not quite sure why you deleted the popular culture section for Lulach as being "poorly sourced". There were three entries in this section, each of which seemed to link to relevant sources. In particular, the one that I added a while back indicates that Lulach is a secondary (but important) character in Dorothy Dunnett's famous historical novel *King Hereafter*, and I linked to the relevant wikipedia articles. I'm not a wikipedia expert, so if what's needed is some further sourcing, I'll be happy to add that. For example, was I supposed to link to the publisher's website for the book? Anyway, I'm going to revert the article back. If you really feel that the section needs fixing, rather than delete it again, please tell me what is needed to properly "source" it. Thank you. JosephSilverman (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@JosephSilverman: That's not quite how it works. Per WP:BURDEN, the burden is on you to come up with sources once content is challenged. That means that the content needs to stay out of the article until you find a reliable source for each item. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I should have explained better. That's my fault. An example of a usable citation would be something written by a professional journalist that identifies the pop culture item as having Lulach in it. For example, an article in The New York Times that says Lulach is a character or topic in a film or novel. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello NRP. I am currently working on expanding an article and I have been looking for people who are willing to help me with it. I currently have two people helping me with it but I need more help, I was wondering if you could help me by adding citations to unsourced material, and finding more information? Here is the link to the page I am working on: User:Paleface Jack/I Drink Your Blood (revision)--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That article looks pretty good. Maybe I can find some more stuff, but it's often difficult to expand older horror films beyond that point. I meant to request access to more e-books via The Wikipedia Library on 1970s horror, but I never really got around to it. I keep getting caught up in reverting vandalism to children's animated films. You wouldn't believe how much disruption there is over there. Or maybe you would. The demographic that those films attract isn't really known for maturity. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, if you are going to help please add yourself to the collab list.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Nice work improving that article. I wrote the stub and had it on a long, long to-do list to come back and flesh out. I appreciate you for taking an item off my to do list and figured this is a good time to actually try out a barnstar. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

		The WikiProject Film Award
		I, cOrneLlrOckEy (talk), hereby award NinjaRobotPirate the WikiProject Film Award for his/her valued contributions to WikiProject Film. Awarded 18:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've created a few articles like that, too, and the to-do list never seems to end! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello NRP, I have been expanding an article for quite some time now and I was wondering if you could help me by expanding the article's lead section for me. The article that I am expanding is on the influential exploitation film I Drink Your Blood, if you do decide to help me please be sure to expand ONLY the lead section for the UserSpace Draft that I created. Here's the link to that draft if you're interested: User:Paleface Jack/I Drink Your Blood (revision)--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I gave it a go. I think I covered the major issues, but I wasn't quite sure what to say for some of them, like the film's reception. I'm not sure we have a source that explicitly says the reception was mixed, and I didn't want to engage in original research. We can figure something out, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! We'll find some sources for the uncited material later.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Might not want to include information on the film's production in the lead though.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe I went a little overboard. It's a fairly well-developed article, and I didn't want to end up having just one or two sentences in the lead. Some Featured Articles, like Prometheus (2012 film) have some production information in the lead, but others, like Blade Runner, seem to skip it in favor of more plot elements. Maybe we could scale it back to include just the shooting location (or a little bit more). It's tough to say; I often find it a bit frustrating to write leads. One thing I try to keep in mind is that mobile users often see nothing but the lead, which means I've started including more details there now. Maybe I shouldn't include quite that much. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel the same way. It seems a bit excessive to add that much info on the film's production in the article's lead, but we can leave in information on where it was shot and what it's was originally intended to be titled. I'm not a mobile user myself but I like that fact that the lead section can pull the reader into reading more about the article. I'll see what I can do about modifying the lead. In the mean time, I was wondering how good are you at doing quoteboxes?--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Your answer at the Help desk about page review here seemed especially clear and informative - and deserved a note of appreciation, more than just clicking thanks! -- Natalya 06:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I was worried that maybe it was a little too detailed. Thanks for the note. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

On the basis of IAR. I thought it advisable to start over with an AfD2, in the hope of a more objective discussion. (I've done this a few times over the years at particularly messy AfDs, & it has usually helped.) I see nothing unreasonable about your nomination (though of course I cannot claim any ability to judge in this subject area). It's the subsequent comments by other people on both sides that made a mess of it. It's not in the least your fault that things degenerated. If the same sort of problems recur, there are other ways to handle it--though we rarely semi-protect an AfD. If it seems to need my further assistance, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. I didn't realize it had gotten so bad over there. There had been a few disruptive comments early on, but I was hoping that the discussion would go back on-topic if people ignored them. Instead, it seems to have turned into a three ring circus, complete with a clown car stuffed with SPAs. Well, next time, I'll keep a closer eye on things and request administrative assistance before it reaches this point. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and I apologize if I didn't follow correct protocol while updating Bloody Disgusting. I tried to be as subjective as possible (sticking to only factual verifiable information) and included references where possible. There is no compensation involved with any of the updates that have been made. I would greatly appreciate your input on the edits though and if you could proofread and make suggestions on how to improve the quality of the content that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owentomm (talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Owentomm: Actually, you've made things a bit easier, as I had intended to expand that article for a while now. I wanted to give you guys a heads up on Wikipedia's guidelines, but I haven't seen anything too promotional. I can take a closer look later. Thanks for taking the time to both improve Wikipedia and learn its rules. We'd love to have your expertise available. I know it's kind of bureaucratic, but the easiest way to deal with a conflict of interest is to post suggestions to the article's talk page. In this case, it would be Talk:Bloody Disgusting. You don't have to do that for minor changes, like fixing errors, but it's considered a "best practice" for editors with a conflict of interest when they want to major changes to the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Perfect, I will definitely use Talk:Bloody Disgusting to suggest any non-minor changes. Thanks for all the help and input, greatly appreciated! Owentomm (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello NRP. I liked how you expanded the lead for my draft and was wondering if you could expand the lead for The Hideous Sun Demon?--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. Tried it again in keeping with the rest of the article. Hope it's okay! LetsDebate (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)LetsDebate

[1]. 31.220.110.89 (talk) 07:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that vandalism. It took a little while, but Big8388desa finally got blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi NRP: A recent edit you performed at AfD has been reverted. You may want to check it out. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: That's very sneaky. I dare you to try that with Drmies. We'll see if ArbCom members retain their sense of humor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The reliable source I used to show Joseph Garrett's birthday states "IBallisticSquid (David Spencer) said in one of his videos that Joseph Garrett (Stampy) was born on the 13th of December", if the video had that statement then the Youtube Wiki could possible be right. JackWoodley93 (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. I was in the middle of writing this accompanying note while you deleted the PROD notice, and got an edit conflict. With a rather terse edit summary too, I noticed, but no matter. The full explanation is below:

It seems you do a lot of good work on Wikipedia- I read over your talk page, and had a quick peek at your contributions. :) However, I don't think this particular article quite meets that standard, for the reasons given in the quick PROD notice. As I'm sure you're aware, a subject needs to be the focus of significant coverage by a variety of reliable sources. While the rules are typically relaxed a bit for software, the references provided still don't qualify under the purview of the relevant policies under the General Notability Guideline or those policies governing reliable sourcing and notability with software. Even though the organisations hosting it considered reliable sources, those typical short little staff-generated blurbs that accompany a download don't quite pass muster. With software, we'd need to have it discussed within articles on their websites, in trade magazines, etc. You're free to take it up with the RS noticeboard, but I doubt it would get much traction given that they write those things for every upload. I did actually do a good faith search for something that would typically pass for a reliable source, and I unfortunately didn't find anything; hence the PROD. Just thought I be cordial and let you know in detail why I nominated it, and why I thought it met the criteria for a uncontroversial deletion. Feel free to drop me a line. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Quinto Simmaco: Yes, I make terse edit summaries when I'm annoyed. I am one of the more active members of Wikipedia in the area of deletion, and I think I quite well understand notability and reliable sources. I have a better than 90% hit rate across over 1000 discussions at WP:AfD. This is some random piece of software that I happened to find while researching something else. I don't much about about it, but it's clearly notable. It was reviews in multiple computer magazines, such as PC World and PC Advisor, which are obviously not download sites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah. I also came across it randomly, when researching possible malware on my computer. And for the record, I understand the annoyance. It's annoying, regardless of the reasoning, to see an editor question a contribution, especially an article someone has created. The terse comment is fine. I'm just personally one of those big believers in civility. Probably to the point of ridiculousness, in the estimation of some people, to be honest. But I totally understand. And I was familiar with your contributions, and somewhat impressed... As the comment I was writing indicated. I just didn't get the opportunity to tell you that, or explain the PROD in detail, before you apparently become annoyed and removed everything. It's all good, though. :)

Admittedly, I passed right over the PC World one. It does qualify as a reliable source; it's hosted as an article by a regular contributor to the site, and meets the criterion of significant coverage. After I had checked the other ones, and found they weren't RS, I apparently passed right over it. I do apologise. The PC Advisor one is a bit more questionable, being a one-off blurb, and it might not get a stamp of approval at the Reliable Source Noticeboard... But I think it'll do for now. The minimum I would usually accept when evaluating new articles in AfC would be 2-3, in establishing notability, depending on the strength of those sources.

Most of my experience is in the field of Article Creation, rather than the obverse deletion process, though I have done a bit at WP:AfD, and in my capacity as helper and AfD reviewer, I do occasionally have to speedy, PROD, or nominate an article in AfD due to a new user trying to upload something promotional to the mainspace that was repeatedly rejected in AfD (in order to bypass any review). Most of my work for Wikipedia is on the periphery, and off-wiki... I'm actually more active and familiar with WP than my edit count would indicate. I think this is okay for now, but it will need to be trimmed a bit, which I'll do a bit later. But with your bringing that article to my attention, I'm satisfied for the moment that it might meet the threshold of notability, albeit only just. It would be helpful to get at least one other reliable source though to bolster it, and I'll personally keep looking to that end... I think I'll be able to find something. I'm no mad deletionist, and I'd rather see someone, especially a regular content contributor, keep those contributions rather than have them deleted. I'm sorry the cleanup attempt upset you... I hope you can see my reasoning as to why I think this article is somewhat borderline. It's not a comment on you, or your contributions. Just on the somewhat shaky notability of the subject. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Quinto Simmaco: There's something about content creation that turns people into irritable grumps. I am not even one of the most prolific or irritable ones. I would advise staying far away from the ones who are less civil than me, as they will bite your head off (perhaps literally, you never know) if you called their article "unsourced" when it already has citations to multiple trade magazines. The download sites supplement those articles and are fine; they are from staff reviewers, and the sites have editorial control. This is enough to satisfy WP:RS. There are further reviews in trade magazines at Chip and PC Welt that I didn't bother to add, as they're in German, and my German is terrible. I can link them in the article, though. The article had already established notability, but I suppose more trade magazines won't hurt. If you want to clean up computing topics, check out the number of UNIX command line utilities that have articles. I started on deleting them, but it's tedious to continually argue with people who believe all UNIX command line utilities are inherently notable. Most of them truly are unsourced, unlike my articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Me??? Come on--Jytdog and JzG get much more (bad) coverage than I do! Drmies (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Well, it's kind of the totality of the experience, you know? Like: "Drmies says something witty", "Drmies annoys someone by letting off an enemy with a warning", "Drmies gets pinged at least five times in one thread", "Drmies makes a lame joke, but everyone chuckles politely because he's on ArbCom", etc. We have to leave room for New Jersey-related drama and "IP gets blocked as a sock after alleging admin abuse". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello NRP. I know you are busy working on other articles at the moment but I was wondering If you could expand the lead section for my sandbox version of The Hideous Sun Demon, another article that I have been working on for a while now. I have a better version in my own user sandbox, but there are still a couple of more things that I need to add before I add it to the real article. Please let me know if you are able to. Here is the link to the draft: Hideous Sun Demon draft--Paleface Jack (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I can look at it. Maybe I can figure something out. I sometimes have trouble working on leads, as it's not always immediately obvious how much detail to include. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel IMDb and Find A Grave are unreliable sources at all. Find A Grave has specific people taking pictures of gravestones in cemeteries meaning they'll have the dates exactly right. This database I feel is a real asset to Wikipedia as we can get proper birth dates and death dates added to articles. Likewise with IMDb. You said it's not a reliable source but where exactly has the website got that information from? You said with Daniel Quinn (actor) that it was unreliable. Well it would be pretty disrespectful to the actor if IMDb made up the date he was born and died. They must have got this information from somewhere and can't have just made up those dates can they? I think you shouldn't be so picky and be a little more open to adding information, but that is just my opinion.DrAcHeNWiNgZz (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, I edited the articles Daniel Quinn (actor) and Jimmie F. Skaggs because they both starred in a film for which I've just made a wiki page for. I edited those specific actor biographies because they were a mess and not formatted correctly at all. Having Daniel Quinn's birth date and death date as: "(1956/57–2015)" just looks messy and unprofessional.DrAcHeNWiNgZz (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) While you have a point, Wikipedia does not consider crowd-sourced content as a reliable source Until that changes, statements sourced solely by those sources are subject to being reverted. Scr★pIron^IV 21:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@DrAcHeNWiNgZz: We have, through consensus, determined that certain websites are unsuitable as citations for Wikipedia. You're doing good work by creating articles and updating biographies; don't let yourself get blocked from editing because you're adding unreliable sources. That would not help anyone. I can update the Daniel Quinn article to use the proper templates, but, honestly, I think it's much worse to put in unsourced/poorly-sourced data than it is to make everything look tidy. What we put in these articles can harm living people; that's why we have a strict policy on it. While it does not apply to dead people, you still need to observe quality sourcing when it comes to their articles, too. We can't just include any old dates that someone found on a website, no matter how popular it is. People can go to Find a Grave or the IMDb if they want to see that data. But it is not suitable for citations on Wikipedia. There's no reason why we can't link to those websites, however, and it is something that I often to in the article's "external links" section. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at 107.217.10.22 (talk · contribs). Edits include false animated sequels to popular films. Sundayclose (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Thanks for pointing that out. I guess that's yet another IP to keep an eye on. I can't say for sure, but I think it's different than the ones I've been documenting so far. Unfortunately, there are a few of these vandals who specialize in animated films. I've seen three or four different ones already, but the 166.x.x.x one is probably the worst. If this keeps up, I might have to add a few more vandals to the page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You've shown an interest in Broadcom in the past so you might be interested in this Talk:Broadcom#Proposal to make two moves. Cheers! ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 00:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

We need more neutral opinions here. I've followed instructions here and at Wikipedia:Feedback request service and to used the user lists there. I've sent a message for neutral input to everyone active recently and available for 10 per month or more on the lists in the Language and linguistics, Media, the arts, and architecture, Society-sports-culture, Unsorted and All-RFCs lists, none of whom have interacted with me before, that I can remember. Have done my best to act in good faith to try to get more neutral opinions. Please help! Thanx! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, looks like too much drama for my taste. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Please explain what I did wrong in my recent edit to the Smurfette Principle page: fixing the red link to the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media by replacing it with a link to that website, properly formatted as an external link? What is an "embedded link" and why did you delete it? (For that matter, why did you not repair the other red link earlier in the same sentence by stripping it of its paired square brackets?) I was actually surprised and dismayed that the G.D.Institute doesn't have a page of its own, but at present and in general my WP activities don't include creating mainspace pages. Thank you, -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Deborahjay: There are two kinds of links on Wikipedia. The first kind are normal links, such Wikipedia, which link to internal articles on Wikipedia's website. If we don't have an article yet on the topic, like Wikipedia red link, it shows up in red. The second kind of link is an embedded link to an external website, such as Wikipedia. Per our policy: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article." These embedded external links, which I perhaps confusingly call "embedded links" sometimes, should generally be restricted to a list at the end of the article. I could try to help you create a Wikipedia article on the Geena Davis Institute. Let me know if you're interested in this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful reply. I hadn't noticed this practice but can certainly comply. In fact, another place I'd put an external link is in a reference citation of web-sourced content. I'll do so in this case. Otherwise, thanks for the offer of assistance in page-building, but for the foreseeable future I'm mainly engaged in extensive Wikignomework here in my fields of expertise (mainly Holocaust and Israel) plus the dire needs of the Hebrew Wikipedia where I'm part of a regional group of editors, also translating Hebrew to English, cataloguing and identifying images in WikiCommons. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. I think I'll still look into creating an article on the Institute, as I agree with you that we probably should have an article on that. Good luck with your work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Most people only write to me to complain/criticise - it gets demoralising - appreciate the appreciation! Dutchy85 (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. Those IPs from Nashua who are involved in my Faster2010 investigation who created some fake titles (Akira: Tetsuo's Edge and Winx Club: The Lost Princess) as well appears to have some simliarities to a Flickr account by the name of Sentai Entertainment. I know Lions Gate and Sentai are two different companies, but some of those titles were listed as redirects on Wikipedia. Looking through this, those posters appear to be ones for films and video games that are nonexistent (examples: the poster for Akira Tetsuo's Edge and Winx Club: The Lost Princess; I can't find any reliable, third-party sources to verify the information, therefore this violates WP:CRYSTAL). Can you please tell me what are your thoughts on the matter? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sjones23: I don't know. But the name of the Flickr account looks similar to Sentai Filmworks, which Faster2010 has edited. Maybe he (or someone else) created the Flickr account to make fake articles on Wikipedia seem more believable. It wouldn't surprise me too much after tracking several long-term vandals that mostly target animation. I guess I'd probably be skeptical of any Wikipedia articles that have the same names as posters on that Flickr account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it was definitely him that created that Flickr account way back in early 2007, around the same time I started editing here (you may note that the Flickr account's earliest postings are here, in which a fake poster for a nonexistent anime film called DJ by Yasuomi Umetsu was created). I believe that Flickr user operating the Sentai Entertainment account started editing here as an IP back in early 2009 per my investigation page, adding some the false information in there from Flickr for quite a while. Not to mention that the Flickr account mentions Sentai Filmworks as a Lionsgate company, but Lionsgate actually doesn't own that. Also, Sentai Filmworks is based in Texas, but the Flickr account lists that company's location as Universal City, California. I noticed the discrepancies in the posters there, so if we find any of the posters for fake articles, we should immediately delete them or clean it up. The claims in the posters on Flickr are provenly false and I think there is misrepresentation of sourcing, which is unacceptable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. I hadn't ever noticed that Flickr account before; you have a good eye for this stuff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I also found this weebly account by DJ Pictures, which also ties it with the Flickr account and the other IPs (it even has the Sentai Filmworks/Lionsgate hoax as well). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You were right about me archiving ANI too much and I was shitty to you in response. Here's an apology beer. Sorry. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Aw, you don't have to apologize for anything. But thanks for the virtual drink. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Where was discussed that this is improper use and should be replaced? Debresser (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: It's a technical issue, really. Using a semicolon improperly like that causes invalid HTML to be generated. This can screw up some web browsers, especially screen readers for the blind. You can read more about it at H:DL and Help talk:Wiki markup#semicolon issue?. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the reply. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Debresser (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You wrote: "Please do not add your own unsourced editorializing in articles. This is original research and is forbidden by policy. If Rotten Tomatoes says that a film has a 34% approval rate, we can cite that. We can't say it received "mixed to negative reviews", though. This is your own interpretation of the RT score."

Is it an inaccurate or poor interpretation, though? The thing with RT's critical consensus statements is that they represent general agreements among critics on the quality of a film. Stormbreaker not only got the consensus that it did, but it was using the following samples for its statements:

• Average (critic) Rating: 4.7/10
• Reviews Counted: 67
• Fresh: 23
• Rotten: 44

Also, most film articles on Wikipedia tend to state the positivity and negativity of critical responses, and RT is frequently used to cite such claims, such as for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. I would like to propose that the final paragraph of the intro to Stormbreaker be written as follows:

Intended to be the first entry in a film franchise, Stormbreaker grossed between $20.7 and 23.9 million worldwide from its $40 million budget, making the film a box office bomb. According to Rotten Tomatoes, the film was largely criticised for its lack of originality and believability.^[1] As a result of these factors, plans to produce further Alex Rider films were dropped.^[2]

PatTheMoron (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason to label it a box office bomb. Just state the gross and leave out the editorializing. We don't label when something is a success or failure. The other stuff is OK. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

…to you, to talk, at any time, if you can propose a way for direct communication. I am sorry to hear of the challenges. Reply here, and I will watch, even this evening. Cheers. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Le Prof. I think I just need to avoid some of the more stressful aspects of Wikipedia editing for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

"Everyone knows Adam Ant is bipolar"... Never heard of him. But I'll take your word for it (and the better source you added). Thanks. :) —PermStrump(talk) 06:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: for a little while in the early 1980s, he was pretty much ever-present. I guess I preferred Public Image Ltd, but Adam Ant was pretty cool. He was in a weird film called Nomads that I think is worth searching out. It reveals the truth that American punk subculture was actually Native American demons. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you think it should be added to the LTA page? — Iridona 14:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've thought about moving my userspace report to WP:LTA, but it would take a lot of effort to rewrite and reorganize properly. By the way, I see you've already been CU blocked as a sock of Winterysteppe. Winterysteppe, you really need to stop socking like this. It's not going to help you get unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry that I'm botering you.

It's about the Rick Rude article. I'm feeling that I don't have enough energy to deal with this right now as I have non-wikipedia stuff going on and it's becoming frustratingly clear that me and the other editor are never going to agree. I don't even know how a consensus is reached on wikipedia and I feel that unless we get input from more other editors it's going nowhere. I feel like I need a break from wikipedia at least a little while, I'm easily upset when people act impolie or disrespect me as I feel the other editor has done and I fear that I will lose my temper soon.

Could you please help out somehow? Maybe by aking the opinion of some respected editors or something becase I'm at a loss right now. I'll be fine with whatever decision they make.

I apologize if I come of as a drama queen, I'm just feeling kind of low right now.*Treker (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@*Treker: You're not bother me at all, and I certainly don't think you're a "drama queen". Try not to let Wikipedia get to you so much. I know, easier said than done. It's easy to get discouraged, especially when you get involved in frustrating discussions to go nowhere. Often, what I try to do in these types of situations is contact a WikiProject, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, or both. You could say something like, "There's a content dispute at Talk:Rick Rude over whether interviews that speculate on the nature of Rude's death should be included. Further input is requested." That way, you keep it neutral and avoid accusations of canvassing. If there isn't any consensus after that (sometimes people just don't respond), Wikipedia has a few more forms of dispute resolution, such as the dispute resolution noticeboard and holding a request for comments (RfC). RfCs are a more formal process, and they usually bring in several uninvolved editors, who are contacted through a random, automated process. Let me know if I can help in some way. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you so much. I will post on Requests for comment/Biographies and hope that this gets input from other people. *Treker (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, please see Sargon of Akkad (YouTube). The article is about to get deleted. Since you happen to be more an expert to restructure articles on Youtube-personalities than that I am, could you please take a look at it? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that deletion discussion. I tried looking for sources, but the results didn't seem conclusive. I could see arguments either way, so I decided to avoid the drama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It's still not a WIkipedia page. If you don't like my template, crate a better one, but don't pretend there exists a biography, based on one phrase in Spanish. Xx236 (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. If you're questioning the article's notability, then you can nominate it for deletion. I thought about doing so, but the news article I found seemed to indicate that he is (or was) famous. I don't speak Spanish, and I don't know where to easily find sources on Spanish authors, so I just added the one reliable-looking source I found. The {{multiple issues}} template is generally used to bundle existing templates. The {{stub}} tag insinuates that critical information is missing – to say so when it's already tagged as a stub is kind of redundant. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Nice work in improving and expanding the Twenty20 Stock Photos article. Thanks for your work to improve the encyclopedia. North America1000 17:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! It's always nice to see one's efforts recognized. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed you removed the sentence in the summary regarding the film's poor reviews, as well as the sentence in the Reception section regarding the fact that not on e critic has given the film a positive review. I don't how you can call either of those statements editorializing; every film has a quick note in the reception section regarding how well or poorly a film was received. If there's a positive review out there by a notable critic, then fine, reviews would be just "mostly negative", but at the moment, there isn't one (I've searched). Thanks! Rockypedia (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: Like I said on your talk page, this is original research, which is forbidden by policy. You need to find a reliable source that specifically states that the film was universally panned. It doesn't matter if there are two negative reviews; there could be 100 positive reviews out there that nobody has cited yet. This is textbook synthesis. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, found one. http://www.indiewire.com/2016/06/cell-review-roundup-stephen-king-adaptation-film-samuel-l-jackson-john-cusack-1201688868/ Rockypedia (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, if a positive review from a notable critic shows up at some point, I'll change the wording to "mostly negative". At this point though, the sources pretty clearly indicate universal disdain. Rockypedia (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: That's not how it works. Per WP:BURDEN, you need to find a source that specifically says there were no positive reviews at all to say that it was "universally" negative. That source does say it received negative reviews, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Ninja. Howdy! My first FA nom is on. Thought I'll ping you about it :) Xender Lourdes (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Xender Lourdes: Holy crap, that's pretty awesome! I hope it goes well. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I hope so too :) See you around. Xender Lourdes (talk) 09:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please, I ask your participation and your help to resolve an ongoing dispute concerning various aspects of articles pertaining to the Miguelist pretenders and false dukes (Miguel Januário, Duarte Nuno and Duarte Pio), also about Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza, and other Royal House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha articles, in an ongoing dispute between editors Cristiano Tomás and Gerard von Hebel against me, here. Those users are combining in their personal discussion pages a way to block me just to silence the truth that I'm being reported. Thank you, Anjo-sozinho (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

172.164.0.243 (talk · contribs) Sundayclose (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see talk:Leland Orser#his age --rogerd (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your tireless work on fighting the "Disney Vandal" RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! There are a few of these long-term vandals that specialize in animated films, and it's exhausting to deal with them. I'm really glad that other people do so much work, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

68.175.84.9 (talk · contribs). As you probably know, Zooey Deschanel is a favorite target. Sundayclose (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting one, because the whois data says it's Time-Warner Cable in New York, which is different than the other IP addresses. It could be a different person who goes after similar articles, or it could be that we finally range blocked so many IP addresses that the vandal is being forced to use his home cable connection instead of his cell phone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to fix my edit, but I think I inadvertently made my fix on an old version of the article and accidentally reverted a whole lot of stuff.

I restored your last good version, then did the edit properly this time! :-/

17:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ubcule: Oh, I was wondering what might have happened. But don't worry too much about the minor stuff. It's not a big deal if a few copy edits get accidentally reverted. The first time I used the "pending changes reviewer" right, I accidentally accepted vandalism into a protected GA. It was embarrassing but easily fixed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

There was quite a bit of difference, unfortunately. Fixed now, though. Ubcule (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I will respond in better detail later when I have more time. Right now I have limited time to do some editing before I leave again. I agree IMBD is not a reliable source, but that editor Gothicfilm has proposed changes by getting their information from IMBD.--Taeyebar 18:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello NRP, just want to let you know that I have finished my expansion on the article for the horror film I Drink Your Blood and I have already incorporated what I have done so far on the draft page into the actual article itself. However its still needs a little more work done to it though, namely giving proper citations to unsourced material, updating citations, and expanding the section on the film's controversy. At the moment I am finished with the article, and I am leaving it up to others to further modify and expand it. I am also working on a new article to collaborate on for WikiProject Horror. It is the article on the infamous horror character Leatherface which is pretty significant but, unfortunately, it is in a state of severe underdevelopment and suffering from poor writing and few sources. My plan is to expand it significantly so that it reaches its full potential, and quite possibly become a featured article like the one on Jason Voorhees. However, for this particular project I will need the help of as many editors as possible since the level of expansion needed would be too daunting for any one or even three editors. Similar to the other collaboration that I have done with I Drink Your Blood, I have already created a draft for the use of expanding the article which I will include the link here. Let me know whether or not you would be able to help expand the article on my talk page and see if you can get other people on this.--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: I Drink Your Blood looks pretty good, but I see a few areas that could use some minor touch-up. I'm not really familiar enough with the film to say whether anything is missing, but I could see if I can find anything interesting. I sometimes find fictional characters a little difficult to work on, as they require a lot more digging to find good sources. I got a good book on the Hellraiser series, so I've been working on the main antagonists in the series, the Cenobites. I'm also trying to expand the films, but it's slow work. Each chapter in the book is pretty long, and they're full of details that have to be summarized. So far, I've expanded Hellraiser IV: Bloodline, and I'll probably work on Hellraiser III next. The first two films will take a lot more effort to expand, as there's just so much information out there. I think old issues of Fangoria and the book Camp Crystal Lake Memories (by Peter M. Bracke, ISBN 9781845763435) would be especially useful for the article on Jason Voorhees. Unfortunately, I don't have either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hellraiser is cool. You should expand the article on Chatterer, he's my personal favorite out of all the cenobites. As for the fictional character, I have never worked on an article on a fictional character so it will be a new experience for me. Thanks for the advice.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It's tough to pick a favorite Cenobite, as they're all so memorable. I added a few out-of-universe details to each character, but it's slow work to find and add all the anecdotes. Hopefully, I can find enough information to expand the character articles a bit more, but I think they're at least safe from deletion now. That was my biggest worry. Some day, maybe we can get the entirety of the Hellraiser franchise to Good Article status. That's a lot of articles, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Good luck!--Paleface Jack (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I am reviewing the article David Adolfo Flores Valladares and I am concerned that it may be a justifiable candidate for Articles for Deletion. As someone who has made extensive changes to it recently I just wanted to seek your opinion to see if that was a good idea or if I should hold off for the time being. My concern is that it is (possibly?) an article on a living person but it has virtually zero sources and is just a long, rambling list of gibberish. I think that this may violate WP:BLP to leave it as is. Alicb (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Alicb: Those were my concerns, too. It was machine-translated from Spanish Wikipedia, which left the English article nearly incomprehensible. I thought about nominating it for deletion, but I often have difficulty locating Spanish-language sources. This makes ascertaining notability difficult, especially since I can't understand Spanish. I know some French, which helps in puzzling out a few search terms, but I have to rely on Google Translate for reading the newspaper articles. That often doesn't work out too well. If you can't find any sources, I'd say try a proposed deletion to see if anyone objects to deletion. I don't really know anyone on Wikipedia who specializes in researching Spanish-language biographies or else I'd ask them to take a look at this. I suppose someone could ask for help cleaning up all these machine-translated Honduras articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Honduras. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: It looks like someone else already deleted the article as "unambigous promotional content". I'm not sure that's strictly true -- it was notable enough to show up in the Spanish wikipedia and from my limited review it looked like the guy was legitimate, but the end result seems fair so I won't press the issue with the deleting admin. Thanks for your feedback! Alicb (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The original Spanish-language article was heavily promotional, and I'd be surprised if it didn't violate es.wiki's policies. I was hoping someone might fix the English-language article before it got deleted, but I suppose this does resolve the problem. I'm often reluctant to tag articles for speedy deletion unless they're hopeless. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, how are you? On the topics of biographies should delete that make "promotion" ?Kaio Murray (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC) Kaio Murray (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

click https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sing_(2016_film)&oldid=732508945 and restore 112.134.81.131 (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

McGeddon has already obliged you. How about you just stop vandalizing articles? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Your edits are incredibly bias and hurting people. Vvvyzooo (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, NinjaRobot! Thank you for responding to my "billing/block starring" on Wikiproject Film. I continue to use the accurate billing block Sausage Party listed at the bottom of the poster, but continue to be reverted because "it's the top billing block". Is there any WP or anything, I could use to prove that the actual billing block is the one on the bottom of the poster? Thank you! Vmars22 (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Vmars22: I took that article off my watchlist a little while ago, as I'm trying to streamline my watchlist down to a more manageable size. I'm not sure there's any guideline on Wikipedia that explicitly describes this. There's {{infobox film}}, which says to use the billing block, and the New York Times article clearly defines the billing block as the text on the bottom of the poster. I looked at Talk:Sausage Party, and there doesn't seem to be much discussion there (just me and some IP editor), so maybe discussing it there would be the best solution. I can start a discussion there and see what happens. If that doesn't work out, I guess there's always the dispute resolution noticeboard. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll re-edit with the proper billing block, and see if it's reverted again. Vmars22 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll check the discussion on the talk too. :) Vmars22 (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Once, "73.112.13.29" and "72.185.224.136" both made WXKB in SWFL "The Melinda", twice, once where I had to do it manually, because of him/her, and one where he had one edit, so I was able to undo the vandalization. Now the Melindaizers has struck 3 times, but in WYDS in Decatur, IL. Again, he edited twice (probably) so he can not let anybody undo his crime. You are the last person who edited before "73.112.15.35" vandalized the page. Are you going to do something about it? Semi-lock the page from excessive vandalization in the past with the same vandalization name "The Melinda"? Everytime I see that name on a station, I know that station is being vandalized, but WYDS is being vandalized over and over and over again, and I hate that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.205.62 (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I added a few of these radio stations to my watchlist, but I haven't kept a close eye on them. It looks like you cleaned up the vandalism. Thanks for that. By the way, I'm not an administrator, so I can't protect the pages. However, if I see this "melinda" vandalism pop up again, I'll see if I can convince an admin to take action. I agree that it's frustrating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I am sorry to bother you but I am in big trouble. I have been asking several times for help in WT:WikiProject Film but instead of advices I have experienced lots of threatening I could be blocked. Do you think you can help me with this problem or shall I listen to them? You know it has taken long preparation before my coming into Wikipedia and I do not want to fall from it just because of few ungrateful editors with their noses above. Thank for understanding. Dr.saze (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dr.saze: I think part of the problem is that awards in film articles have been contentious for a while. There was even an Arbcom case where an administrator was desysoped for edit warring over this topic (among other issues). After complaints that non-notable awards were being added to articles and the subsequent controversy when they were removed, we had an RfC at WT:FILM to better determine the inclusion criteria. If there's debate and arguing once again, maybe it's time for a second RfC. It seems as though some people think the AFI accolades are too trivial to mention, and one question we could answer is whether a third party source is required to demonstrate due weight. I don't think that was substantially addressed in the previous RfC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright. I am not very concerned in an RfC but I will be very happy for the help of such a wise editor as you. - Dr.saze (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

for restoring the blanked CfD. And don't forget - you can vote on Category:War action films yourself...! - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering why you re-added the "Semiotics" section on acting? It's incoherent and wrong (which is why I removed it). Were you just undoing what you thought was vandalism, or did you think there was something in it? Thanks,  • DP •  ^{huh?} 06:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@DionysosProteus: "Vandalism" is a kind of strong term and not one that I would use. It was clearly in good faith. I had two problems with its removal: it's sourced, and even though it sounds like it could come from an online generator of postmodernist essays, it makes some sense to me. It seems to be saying that once the audience accepts the actor's performance, it becomes defined by each audience member's interpretation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I appreciate that it sounds like it makes sense, but it doesn't. Apologies if it's too much detail (or better on the talk page), but: the first sentence is false. The second, dubious for many forms of acting. The third, a misuse of "device". The fourth, a confusion between semiotics and representation. The fifth, again dubious assumptions. The sixth, uncontroversial but lacking an explanation or framing of the "text-reading" metaphor. The seventh, dubious like the 2nd. The eighth, a misunderstanding of what a semiotics of performance involves... It's all like that. Bringing in Meisner to a discussion of performance semiotics makes no sense. Semiotics of Performance at Google Books or Theatre as Sign-System at Google Books are the first two that come up on a GB search and if you're interested will, even at a quick glance (even just at the contents page), give an idea why. Concerns with the "believablility" of a performance and a semiotic approach (to analysis, but more especially to creating a performance) are pretty much opposite approaches. Whoever wrote that was trying (unsuccessfully) to relate what they knew from a practical acting class with what they've learnt in a university (I'm assuming). It's not that the topic doesn't belong -- it certainly does -- but that the material in it atm is misleading and/or false. The sources cited don't support the argument given.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 20:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@DionysosProteus: Hmm, well, I'll buy what you're saying. Perhaps I'm straining too hard to assume good faith on behalf of the wrong party. I can revert my edit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks -- although, I don't think that the material was added in bad faith -- it's just that whoever did it hadn't yet understood it. Happy editing  • DP •  ^{huh?} 20:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

He he.... Lourdes 11:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Wow, that's great! Before I wrote my first GA, I practiced my article-writing skills on the associated list for that topic. I wanted to bring that list to FL, but it's just too much work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ninja. I realized that editors at FL and FA review actually work towards helping you get an FL/FA rather than dismissing even the worst submissions. Seriously, I found the FL and FA desks almost like the Help Desks, where, rather than simply criticizing the article, all that the reviewers do is to keep recommending what changes to make to bring up the quality. I think that's one absolutely positive way to motivate editors. If you can bring your List to acceptable quality (even a GA standard), I am sure I can work with you on the same to bring it up to FL. What say? Lourdes 00:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lourdes: At one point, it would have been possible. There were numerous problems, but it had a solid foundation thanks to the months of work that I put into it. Then someone partially converted the article from list format to table format. After despairing on the talk page, I eventually realized nobody else was going to help me fix it, so I did all the grueling work myself to finish the conversation. After that, the last thing I wanted to do was perform further work on the article, and I left it alone for a while. Big mistake. Someone took the article and turned it into a huge, indiscriminate, poorly-sourced example farm. It would take months to repair the article, and I just don't have it in me any more. However, my current project, Hellraiser IV: Bloodline, is looking pretty good. Eventually, I hope to bring the rest of the Hellraiser franchise to somewhere around that level. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful. Keep me in the loop if you need help any time. Lourdes 03:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I almost spit out my coffee and went "woah", having misread the 'r' as an 'n'. Guess my eyesight is failing at such a young age :-) - NQ (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@NQ: I was a half second from slamming the Rollback button and "only warning"-ing you... Glad I hit the diff and read the rest of your message. lol my eyesight must be failing too. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Haha. Maybe I should go change the wording. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, I don't want to talk to you because you are bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.210.233 (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

How about you just contribute constructively and source your edits? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I would be blocked if I did that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.220.80 (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I haven't found no references about Giuliano Carnimeo's death, but if you take a look at his Italian Wikipedia page, you'll see that he has actually died. AleCapHollywood (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@AleCapHollywood: how do you know he died if you can't locate a source? Locate a source first, then edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Concur with you. I removed it, and explained my edit on the article's talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I edited it because Sony Pictures is the parent of Columbia Pictures, not the distributor of the film. Columbia Pictures is the distributor of the 2006 The Pink Panther film. There's your answer. Now, change it back to "Distributed by Columbia Pictures" because I know you edited the page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by XSMan2016 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The American Film Institute says it was released by Sony Pictures Releasing, and they're a reliable source. Please just leave the distributor alone. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not what individual editors think is the truth. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Most of the film pages on English Wikipedia uses this general sentence while describing RT score: "On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a rating of X%, based on Y reviews, with an average rating of Z." So there is no need to change this because of "with is not a conjunction". Have a nice day! Sebastian James (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: It's incorrect grammar. There is always a reason to change incorrect grammar; please do not use "with" as a conjunction. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

What would be the correct grammar for that phrase? Tapered (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

There are infinite ways to phrase it, really. The easiest way is to use a semicolon, which is what they were invented to do. For example: "On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an X% approval rating; the average rating is Z." Or you could use a conjunction: "the film has an X% approval rating and a Y average score". The problem is when people use "with" as a conjunction instead of a preposition. You can't say, "I have three apples in my left hand, with another in my right." Or, at least, you shouldn't. The correct way to say that would be, "I have three apples in my left hand and another in my right." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to vent a bit, I'll be blunt. You couldn't be more wrong. I wouldn't waste one more second of my time trying to do anything about the title of the article. If I did propose a renaming, the same group of disingenuous ideologues from the medical science Mafia, who did the Kabuki theatre discussion, would show up @ the Talk page and drown it 'keeps.' That's why I took the unusual step that I did. I doubt that an Admin can even do what I suggested, but it's the only (near infinitessimal) hope. Regards and thanks for the good will. Tapered (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tapered: "Disingenuous" is going to get you into trouble. It's best to avoid using adjectives and adverbs altogether when you're talking about other editors. I think I get along alright with Jytdog – or, at least, we've never had a major disagreement. I'm sure he'd listen to reason if you were persuasive enough. But sometimes you end up the lone voice of reason on a talk page, and consensus goes against you. In those cases, I console myself with the knowledge that someone else will have to deal with fixing that article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ninja. I went to Derek R Bullamore's talk page to let him know that he had inadvertently (as I thought) deleted information from references with one of his edits. I found that you had already broached the subject with him. I explained at some length why he should not be doing what he's doing. He has been on his talk page since, but he's still going ahead with the same kind of edits. This, this, this and this each contain at least one ref where the description has been removed and "dead link" has been added. My first impulse was to go to ANI, but I am not familiar with conventions and guidelines for refs or for using scripts. I thought I'd let you know so you can see if you think action is warranted. Scolaire (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Scolaire: It doesn't look like he responded on his talk page yet. It's best to give him a chance to do that. Maybe I can say something a little more constructive now that I'm less upset about the initial edits I complained about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, he edited his talk page first thing, before he went and did the other edits. It's theoretically possible that he did that without noticing that there was a post right there, but it looked to me as though he was deliberately ignoring the post and going on with what he was doing. How long do you allow somebody to respond if you can see they're not responding? Anyway, thanks for pitching in. Scolaire (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

His answer is pretty frustrating. I'm glad you asked Dispenser for input. Maybe this can clear it up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Looking back at my edits, I have made a HUGE mistake about using IMDb for adding Sean Schemmel's birth date. I should've realized that you can't use user-generated sites on a site that's also user-generated. I just didn't see Schemmel's birth date anywhere on his Wikipedia page. I may have used IMDb for a few more Funimation voice actor's birth dates, which makes this situation worse. I promise that I won't use IMDb on Wikipedia again. DBZFan30 (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@DBZFan30: Don't worry too much about it. Everybody makes mistakes, but they eventually get fixed. The first time I used my pending changes reviewer right, I allowed vandalism into a Good Article. I sometimes still find errors that I made in articles from five years ago, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you. I have left a reminder about adding Sean's birth date in the talk section on his Wikipedia page. DBZFan30 (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's no easy solution. If they had a registered username, we could certainly block that on WP:DISRUPT grounds, but for an IP number we can really only apply a temporary block for a few hours at most — and since the user hasn't always been on the same IP number, they could obviously get around it easily since we can't block an entire IP range except in the most extreme "emergency" circumstances. I still to this day believe that Wikipedia should bar anonymous IP editing at all — to me, the distinction between "anyone can edit" and "anyone can register to edit" isn't significant enough to justify leaving things as open to anonymous vandalism and disruption as they are — but consensus has never been on my side. So unfortunately, about all we can do in a situation like this is to undo or repair the disruption it as it happens. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello how are you? thanks for helping me here on wikipedia--Utsp22 (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I can relate with being overwhelmed by the amount of material for certain films! I got Fight Club to Featured Article status but without any critical analysis. I did a sub-article with Interpretations of Fight Club but only managed four sections (one based on each source). It was easy enough to put together what I wanted to review, but to actually retrieve sources and review them proved daunting; see Talk:Interpretations of Fight Club/references. Regarding research, have you used WorldCat.org? I think it helps because one can search across books' tables of content. For example, this shows up for Hellraiser (identifying the third film, in this case). It does not seem like there is much more beyond that, so you are probably right in that regard. Oh, and if you want a research eyesore, see this for Psycho: Talk:Psycho (1960 film)/references. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Erik: That's a good idea about WorldCat. No, I hadn't thought of that. I knew about Muir's work, though. Frustratingly, Horror Movies of the 1990s is the only book in that series that's not available in a preview on Google Books. The good news, though, is that it's available for free through The Wikipedia Library, so I just have to get around to requesting it. I got a really extensive book on the Hellraiser series with the intention of expanding the entire franchise. I started with Hellraiser: Bloodline, the fourth film in the series, mostly because it's an Alan Smithee production, which makes it infamous enough to have pretty good coverage yet obscure enough to make it manageable. The first Hellraiser film is so popular that it's going to be a pain to expand. Still – it's no Fight Club or Psycho! That is a truly frightening amount of potential sources. Betty had to eventually stop me from adding sources when I was writing cult film, as there are an endless number of high-quality sources. My interest in the subject matter made it a lot easier to write such a long article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, nice work on cult film! I've Pocketed it for deep reading. :) Sometimes I wish doing this kind of work could be a full-time job, to get paid to pull together all these sources that would normally rarely be combined... Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see what happened if the WMF hired some people to create content full-time, but I think that'd probably be opposed by the community. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you know whether Pro-Linux has any sort of editorial process? The site reads like a blog with articles written by standard users, but open to being wrong. czar 04:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: honestly, I'm not sure. My German is terrible, and I often have to rely on Google Translate to understand German sites. I was going mostly off of this page, which mentions "Redaktion" – an editor. It could be like a Slashdot editor, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I did what you said! "Please do not change sourced text without a proper citation." So IMDB showed that Twentieth Century Fox distributed the film internationally, except in North America.^[1] And Sony Pictures has never distributed the film. Columbia Pictures did! And you think people will believe that Sony Pictures distributed the film? I don't think it did. Sony Pictures is the Parent to Columbia. So make it say "Distributed by Columbia Pictures" instead! Also, I'm autistic, and it gave me a reaction to your edit "Columbia Pictures is the distributor. Idiots." It's my autism that made me think that Sony Pictures being distributor is wrong!!! >:(

	Best Suggestion
	WHAT THE? WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? Jason elijah (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jason elijah: I'm not sure what you're saying. It looks like you're referring to this discussion on your talk page. In it, I asked you to stop sorting film categories alphabetically. Is there something you don't understand about this request? Generally, we don't sort film categories alphabetically. When they're arranged in a specific order (for example, when all the production companies are listed together at the bottom), you can tell very easily which ones are missing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, regarding this edit, I only added his Birth date and Birth place and these are known about the actor, and certainly didn't take these information from IMDB.

Thanks. Another from the same stable is Midnight Delight (film) with a review from a small town weekly and 2 film festivals with articles. But they don't look notable. The second one doesn't even try to establish notability. Doug Weller talk 06:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: back a while ago, Cyphoidbomb and I tried to clean up some of the Rohit Gupta articles, and it was a real fight just to get the worst of the peacock language out of them. I don't know if it's COI editing or just incredibly dedicated fans, but these articles have a very strong tendency to turn into "Rohit Gupta is an acclaimed, award-winning filmmaker who is the best person ever". I just pruned down the awards in Midnight Delight earlier tonight, and those two film festivals were the only ones that had articles. I think both festivals' articles look pretty iffy, but it's difficult to tell at a glance. "Camp Cult Classics Film Festival" only gets 17 hits on a Google search, so I'm going to prod that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Run as fast as you can and you keep falling behind, right? Doug Weller talk 09:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi NRP. First one is about this. While I get your point I kinda prefer alphabetic listings. I don't think filmcat prevents that exactly but I also respect your preference. Do you think that we should have a talk page thread where we nail down the specifics. I just want to avoid any future edit wars over this. If I've misread filmcat let me get my apologies in early :-) The other item is one I keep forgetting to mention. In relation to the IP hopper mentioned here User talk:MarnetteD#Thanks I wanted to let you know that Widr is aware of the problem and you can let him know when they pop up in the future. I don't always catch when the "phantom overlinker" (this is under copyright as I am writing a horror film about him/her - heehee) gets going so I sure appreciate your help in dealing with their edits. Cheers and have a delightful week. MarnetteD|Talk 21:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Sure, WP:FILMCAT doesn't prevent anything; it's not even a guideline or anything. I wasn't even aware of that page until Lugnuts chastised me once for ignoring it. I used to clash with Lugnuts all the time, but I've since come around to his POV on quite a lot of things. The biggest problem, in my opinion, with sorting things alphabetically is that you end up with 20th Century Fox at the top of the categories, Warner Bros. at the bottom, and the other production companies kind of randomly interspersed. For some people, maybe that makes sense, but it makes it rather difficult for me, since I'm not especially knowledgeable who produced what. But, yeah, I don't have a problem with discussing it somewhere. Eh, Betty will probably just tell me I'm being stubborn, which is often true. As far as vandalism goes, I've been trying to keep track of a few disruptive IP editors lately, but there are just so many of them. I'm glad Widr is on the case. Recently, I've been tracking a few IP ranges via the WMF's range contribs tool. I'm sure you're already aware of that, but I figured I'd mention it anyway, since I didn't realize it was so useful until somewhat recently. Hopefully, MediaWiki will incorporate some of its features soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply NRP. I remember knowing about that tool but my dusty old memory banks had pushed it to one of the unused recesses of my brain. Thus, it is nice to have the link to it again. Your explanation about the categories sure makes sense. I appreciate the time you took to explain things so clearly. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 22:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Same here; I knew of the range contribs tool, but I was doing things the hard way. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

There are users attempting to restore this page. They aren't citing any sources that confirm its existence. Can you assess the situation?Crboyer (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Crboyer: technically, I don't think you can prod that since it was already nominated for deletion in the past. WP:G4, tagging it for a merge with {{merge to}}, or going back to AfD would probably be better choices. Right now, there's a citation to Blomkamp's Twitter feed in Chappie that says production was to begin in October 2016. I don't think there's enough coverage to warrant an article yet, but who knows. I'm not an admin, so I can't protect the article. You might consider raising the issue at WP:RFPP if it continues to be recreated without sources. Sometimes enthusiastic fans get a bit ahead of the sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The situation with "Chappie 2" took a turn for the ugly last night. Blomkamp's twitter feed has now stated the film's not happening and the same fan(s) refuse to listen. I'm sorry for bothering you, but what do you suggest I do if it turns ugly again in the future? Crboyer (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Crboyer: An IP editor is repeatedly blanking the AfD discussion but has already been reported to WP:AIV. I'm going to give CommanderShinzon is a warning for blanking, since he's also blanked the AfD. If it keeps up, there's always WP:SPI and WP:ANI. It's tedious to deal with kind of disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for making the page blank, but i want you all to realize that the fans of Chappie (including myself) don't believe what Neill Blomkamp said. CommanderShinzon (talk)

Everyone listen to me, Neill Blomkamp lied. Production is still going on and i know that and if you all want proof here it is. SethStewart56 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

https://www.instagram.com/p/BNuz6nNDOOg/?taken-by=commandershinzon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chappie5216 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest Rafa Figueiredo sock: Special:Contributions/Goodcontributor. These two edits have me convinced. Would you agree? Sro23 (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sro23: Yeah, almost certainly. I figured to keep an eye on the account in hopes of finding a smoking gun, but you could probably get him blocked based on the existing evidence if you wanted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I filed the SPI. There were enough quacks to make it too obvious to ignore. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

• Use {{subst:The Challenge series invitation}} to invite others using this template.
• Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC).

I too have had dealings with BMK regarding popcruft and his claims that sources weren't needed to establish significance. The creation of WP:IPCV was one of the happiest WP-editing days of my life. In any event, welcome to my world. Please accept this kitten as a token of our esteem.

DonIago (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, he's been edit warring over this for a long time. Consensus is rather clear. He'll either give it up or get blocked again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for the clashing between budget sources. Thank you for pointing it out for future reference. Worwicstudent2 (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you think of Will Be Continued? I have my suspicions because the "gross" edit summaries are really an Easy4me hallmark, and there's even a little overlap as well ([2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]), however the interest in presidential elections is definitely a new thing. Sro23 (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sro23: I never saw Easy4me edit politics or sports. I don't understand why, but updating Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic/grosses is a very popular wikignome activity now. I used to check the geolocation of every single IP editor that added an unsourced budget or updated a film's gross, but I quickly found they were coming from all over the world. This is probably one of those IP editors after creating an account. WBC has a few of Easy4me's hallmarks, but he's missing others. If he disruptively removes a citation to a film budget, that would go a long way toward convincing me, but I'm leaning toward "probably not". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Can I ask, what is your opinion of Worwicstudent2? I noticed they've been warned on their talk more than a few times about unsourced budgets, edits like this. Am I just being paranoid again? Sro23 (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sro23: Almost certainly an Easy4me sock, but I've been trying to ignore it. The editor interaction analyzer results could probably get him blocked. I warned him once for screwing with budgets, and he promised to stop. It's kind of a bother to keep filing these SPI cases, and I hoped that would be enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey mate, thanks for helping out Mr. Smart LION at WT:FILM. Greatly appreciate that. My hackles keep getting thrown up when I happen upon people covering stuff talkin' 'bout "The film had a great opening, average grosser, etc." I wanted to defer to the community because I think there are times when I'm hypersensitive about possible hyperbole. So I appreciate your efforts to guide the process. Indian film articles are (as I've harped about waaay too many times) troublesome. This user in particular I believe has good intentions to help bring articles to GA, but I fear that oftentimes the people who pass film articles to GA don't know about MOS:FILM, which is unsettling. Anyway, ramble, ramble, ramble. Thanks for helping out, I owe you one. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I don't mind helping out when I can, but my competence is somewhat limited in Indian topics, unfortunately. I'm better at stuff like Mad Max or Chopper Chicks in Zombietown. Or Rabid Grannies. I'm probably the only person who likes that film. Yeah, if you find someone who needs help with obscure exploitation trash, send them my way. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, NinjaRobotPirate.

Thank you for voting in this AfD a while back. Another AfD I've created, for Stephanie Retuya, has gone without any votes for seven days. Could you please share your thoughts on the matter? I asked for votes a few days back at the help desk but still nobody voted, and I didn't want to add an RfC because you said RfCs are for article talk pages only. Thank you in advance. Linguist If you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message 15:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

please revert back my addition. The case of strange noises and blast is well documented in many russian sources and is confirmed by non the less the director of the site. Pay attention id soes not impy ant paranormal activity just the possible source of the legend.

http://www.popmech.ru/science/8792-na-poroge-preispodney-kolskaya-sverkhglubokaya-skvazhina/ English: http://survinat.com/2013/03/on-the-threshold-of-hell-kola-ultradeep-well/

Talking about similar incident by the manufacturing company in 1882 https://www.uralmash.ru/en/about/history/the-unbreakable-record/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.16.255 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I think strange noises would have to be documented quite well to overcome the massive amount of sources that say nothing happened. If you want, I could bring it up at the appropriate Wikipedia noticeboard to have a discussion about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

My apologies if I misunderstood, the source linked to that particular reference said Sony, hence my confusion. (Source for reference - ^[1]) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk

@Chrissymad: Well, it's more my fault, really. The source says "SONY DISTRIBUTED THIS" in big letters on the page I linked, and you have to click to show who distributed it in Russia. It's not really obvious what I was doing, and I should have included some kind of explanatory note from the beginning. I was lazy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I looked at some other sources^[2] and just didn't see Fox listed which is why I was so confident in my original edit. Whoops! Cheers! edit: now I see the Fox portion in the source. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk

Thank you for the helpful suggestions you made to the nominated for deletion : Joseph Michael Linsner page discussion. I have had a Journalist chime in on the matter. Hopefully it will help. Unfortunately I, nor Joseph Michael Linsner are able to edit the page to add any vetted sources as we were both cited with a WI:COI or conflict of interest by the Admin who nominated it for deletion in the first place. But I truly do appreciate your thoughtful comments.User:Kristina Deak Linsner (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kristina Deak Linsner: some people are very strict about enforcing COI. Don't worry too much about whether the sources are listed in the article; the current status of the article is generally not a concern at AfD. If the article is kept, I might be able to help out some. If it's deleted, all hope is not lost. You can still start a new draft at articles for creation. It looks like things are getting a little chaotic in that deletion discussion, and you should be aware that Wikipedians take a very skeptical view of a rapid influx of new users who all vote the same way in a deletion discussion. It can look like a PR campaign that is being waged to save a hopeless article. This can prejudice experienced Wikipedians against the article, resulting in a strong backlash. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can definitely see that. Unfortunately, as "fans" are logging in to simply read his article, they see the link about it being "nominated for deletion" at the top of the page--and the prompts to comment on the discussion page. I sat down with Joe and I asked him "Do you really even NEED a Wikipedia page?" and he stated "No, I don't essentially." As it was never authored by him in the first place and hardly portrays what we would like to about him and his career. He merely edited it to include links to more recent works and update his photo. (the previous one was from 2007) Which are the edits he made recently and what started this whole mess in the first place. I thank you for your suggestions, guidance and ultimately, for being polite to Joe and myself.

Part of the issue with listing independent sources, is that many of these articles on Joe were written in the 90's on printed matter (magazines, etc.) and have no online history. Comic book authors and artists mainly write, draw, pencil, and ink a lot. (Joe even colors his own work 80-85% of the time) They spend so much time behind the drafting table that they don't really have lives which can be reported on via any other source than links to their visual or written work. Which in and of itself, does not leave much time for articles to be written about whether or not they "had a great golf game" or "enjoy long walks in the park" or "what their influences are" etc. Thanks again for your help in this matter. I will take everything under advisement. User:Kristina Deak Linsner (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kristina Deak Linsner: for what it's worth, I think Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are sometimes unfair and can punish people who aren't shameless publicity hounds. But, at the same time, it's the best we've been able to come up with. We used to have wide-open policies that allowed for almost anyone, but then the site filled up with garage bands that nobody's ever heard of. I hope you don't go away thinking that Wikipedia is a bureaucratic nightmare populated by rude people. I mean, it kind of is, but it's also pretty cool. If nothing else, maybe the ordeal can inspire a Kafkaesque plane of judgment where famous heroes must justify their continued existence. I would chuckle if I saw that in a comic book. If you need help navigating Wikipedia's maze of policies, feel free to ask; I may be able to help. I'll try searching for more sources considered acceptable by Wikipedia's standards, but I think maybe you're right that most of it is probably not going to be available online. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate Thank you again for your offer of help and for all of your suggestions. I did view on wikipedia that the "Notability guide" points out that sources DO NOT have to be available online. So whatever I have in printed matter is fine. I think I just I have to learn to include correct Wikipedia citation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

Do you have an email address that I could contact you at? Even if it's only a junk mail account that I could send my address to for correspondence.Because I do have some page scans of articles which I feel would help.

As for the "wide-open policies" thing? Oh, I hear you on that one. I know that every indie band (The Biff Boffo's Players, etc.) out there used Wiki to promote themselves and that added to the maze of pages on wiki. I can certainly understand the policy of page deletion. In this case, eh? Not so much. Joe is established. And I, in many ways think that the nomination of deletion of his page was quite simply made by an Admin who has a low opinion of his work. (see his comment in the AfD discussion) And that shows complete bias on the part of the Admin in MY opinion. I also see when I check Joe's editing history for the page that they have removed the link I put in to make mention of Joe's 1997 Eisner nomination. (Cited me under wikifarm)

Which is wrong, because it IS an independent source! To be nominated for such a prestigious award surely shows HE is the notable subject and not just his work.

1997 WILL EISNER COMIC INDUSTRY AWARD NOMINEE (for best painter)

[12]

I guess that could be added under the career section of his page. Something like: "He was nominated for a 1997 WILL EISNER COMIC INDUSTRY AWARD NOMINEE (for best painter)". And a link provided. But I cannot add to the page, as I am cited with a WIKI:COI. So "bureaucratic nightmare" -- to be sure! User:Kristina Deak Linsner (talk)

@Kristina Deak Linsner: if you wanted to, you could use "Special:EmailUser/NinjaRobotPirate" to contact me, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. You're right that sources don't have to be online or easily accessible. They just have to exist, that's all. Technically, we're instructed to accept these sources even if we can't access them personally. In reality, sometimes editors get suspicious that sources have been fabricated, so I guess it helps if you have someone who's got a good reputation on Wikipedia to back you up. What you could do is catalogue the sources that you've got at the deletion discussion, then let someone else worry about wiki notation. The most important information would be title, author, publisher, ISBN (if applicable), year/date/issue, and page number. That should be enough for someone else to look it up and verify the information, for example at Google Books, which has excerpts from digitized books and magazines available. WP:ANYBIO is probably what you'd want to cite for awards, but wins would definitely carry more weight. It looks like the Eisner nomination is in the article now, but what happened the first time you added it was an automated program removed it. Yeah, I know what you're going to say, but they usually do more good than harm. Arguing over what goes in the article isn't necessarily a battle that's worth fighting. Sources presented in the deletion discussion are more likely to be read and discussed, anyway. Anyone can revert an edit made the article, but sources presented in the deletion discussion are can't be as easily dismissed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Season's Greetings, NinjaRobotPirate! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 18:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas NinjaRobotPirate!!
	Hi NinjaRobotPirate, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 20:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I left a response on the deletion discussion. If you have time, could you please consider your decision once more? JonSonberg (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, happy holidays! While I don't think we've associated a great deal, I've certainly seen your name around. :)

Secondly, this may be of interest, as I note that you commented on their Talk page at one point.

Hope you're having a great December! DonIago (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Good catch on that potential sock puppet. I'll be curious to see how this plays out. If that is Troy, they really picked the worst possible way to address the situation. Cheers, and happy holidays! DonIago (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Linguist If you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message 14:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi NinjaRobotPirate. I wanted to enquire as to your thoughts about running for adminship. From a cursory investigation I think you'd make a great candidate, but given your comment somewhere above about not wanting to run in the past, I thought I'd check in with you before doing anything too in-depth. As far as I can see you've got everything voters look for in an admin candidate, and I think you could do some good with the admin toolset! Sam Walton (talk) 11:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: I've thought about it. It's a little tedious to continually report obvious sock puppets and LTA vandals. I'd have somewhat similar problems as Montanabw, I think, but who knows. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

What makes you think that? It seems Montanabw's RfA was primarily opposed due to battleground/civility concerns, which I've yet to see in your contributions. Sam Walton (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: I think I can usually stay pretty calm, but there've been a few long-standing personality conflicts between me and a few RfA voters over content issues. BMK and Andrew Davidson would certainly strongly oppose, but I don't know if anyone else really cares all that much about our drama. I've been a part of the ANI peanut gallery for several years now, and that could be seen either as experience in admin areas or drama-mongering. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd suspect that no one cares about minor drama between users, but it's best to discuss these things in the open at any rate. Do you have any examples that might be surfaced as a reason to oppose, and your thoughts on those situations now? Sam Walton (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: this was the latest episode of our longstanding "do pop culture references require a source" debate. I removed unsourced pop culture trivia, and BMK reverted me. I should have handled it with more tact, but BMK is quite aware of site-wide consensus on the issue. Just the same, it was a bad idea to turn this into a rehash of our policy debate when I could have easily resolved it myself by finding a source. That would have been the less dramatic solution, which is what someone else did. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't concern me greatly, you seemed to handle the situation quite reasonably. Some more investigation leaves me confident that you're a worthy admin candidate and I would be happy to nominate you. I've started a blank request area at User:Samwalton9/RfA/NinjaRobotPirate. Lets continue the discussion at that talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not disruptive editing when James Cameron will never make Avatar2, because it's fact that James Cameron will never make Avatar2, because I wrote a letter to James Cameron that will tell James Cameron to never make Avatar2, because if Wikipedia lied to us all that Got Turbo Star is The Series Finale Of Max Steel 2013, because in truth Got Turbo Star is not The Series Finale Of Max Steel 2013, because Netflix did not make Got Turbo Star the series finale of Max Steel 2013, because Netflix made The Final Countdown: Part 2 the series finale of Max Steel 2013, the Wikipedia lied to us all that James Cameron will make Avatar2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:7830:A39:99B1:B5C0:9B9A:659 (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi I am just wanted to scare one of the editors who is clearly making false information and putting Damien Teo in a bad name Bryan4562013 (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey man, I'm stoked to see your name at the RfA. Naturally you have my support. RfAs can be super-stressful, so I hope you're prepared for that. Obviously I wish you the best. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It's actually the first time I've requested a permission on Wikipedia. I had reviewer, rollbacker, and autopatrolled all randomly bestowed upon me. So, at least my first time will be memorable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

May I offer a quick bit of advice - trim down those quotation boxes in Cult film as they may invite criticism of close paraphrasing, also I think the BBC2 Alex Cox Youtube link is technically a copyright violation (though a comment says that since the BBC may have wiped this, nobody cares). An "Oppose - best work has copyvios in it" might sink an RfA stone dead. (I'm not going to do that, but as for everyone else.... and it is mentioned on Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea. Someone else was responsible for adding the quote boxes and youtube link, but it's probably not a good thing to showcase that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Best wishes with your RfA! At the risk of sounding bitter, I hope it proves less bruising than my own abortive attempt! DonIago (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hope you didn't mind me asking those questions, there weren't any recent edits that I had questions about. I've voted on your RfA. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can say the questions so far have not been what I was expecting. I was kind of hoping nobody would look at my first edits. I think they're embarrassing! Then again, there's always an embarrassing edit somewhere in the past hundred. Sometimes I preview three times, make one incredibly minor change, and save the page. Then I notice the last change caused the entire page to be screwed up. I figured someone would find one of those edits and say that I never preview. Maybe they're just waiting until the last day to spring it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that on AllMovie, Shaun of the Dead is listed as a British film, I might have forgotten to mention that, and apologize for any misunderstanding. Canadaman100 (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

[13] --JustBerry (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Mind confirming you've seen my note to you in my support? No need to comment further, since that can put you in an awkward position as a candidate, but I'd like to know that the note was seen before you get the mop. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. You mean the bit about merging SPI cases? I saw that on the info page when I checked, but it didn't seem conclusively worded – like how it says only SPI clerks should archive cases. It makes sense that SPI clerks would be the ones to merge them, but there didn't seem to be a prohibition. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)