Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:58, 27 January 2010

• Archive 1: March 17, 2005 - April 22, 2007
• Archive 2: April 26, 2007 - August 10, 2008
• Archive 3: August 12, 2008 - December 26, 2009

Gauntlet Merge proposal

I proposed a merge a while back but only two people (besides me) have posted. Having a discussion of 2 against 1 doesn't seem like enough people to establish consensus. If you could please post your opinion here I would appreciate it. I want enough opinions so that I can either merge the articles or end the discussion so that the merge tags are no longer at the top of the articles. Thank you. --Spidey104 03:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies for not joining the discussion you invited me to. Lots of real life messiness. I'm gonna try to pop around somewhat but, will be alot less frequent than before. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Asgardian

Um... you may want to go over the section you posted there and make sure your links either point to the section in your archives or to the actual dif. I just clicked on one and got your near empty talk page, not the evidence you wanted to show. - J Greb (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, certifying indicates that you have tried and failed to resolve the dispute, whereas endorsing the main summary states that you merely agree with it; no one should use both for the main summary.  :) BOZ (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"The dispute" in this case being the whole thing described under the main summary, or any part of it (as far as I'm concerned). No problem on the understanding; you gotta learn sometime, and sometimes the best way to learn is to ask.  :) BOZ (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much, although I think the "tried to resolve the dispute" is a key part of certifying the debate (that is, I wouldn't think that someone should be certifying if they just fanned the flames and didn't try to put them out). BOZ (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Rational Response Squad

Hey, Nightscream. Thanks for contacting me regarding the page. Perhaps I was over hasty in deleting some of the intro; it's seem a bit like an advertisement so I paired it down. As for you other concerns, they seem a little off. I gave two sources in connection with "Brian Sapient": the first authenticated the claim that he was a co-founder of the RSS and the second provided his real name. As for "Rook Hawkins", his real name is now common knowledge, but I wanted to be thorough since I expected objections like this so I sourced it nevertheless. I checked the link you posted regarding reliable sources and I couldn't find the words "social," "networking," "MySpace," or "Facebook" anywhere. All I found was a statement that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves," which is exactly what the Facebook page I referenced was: a self-published source by the RSS on the RSS. Finally, given that Brian's real name is found in sources the article already was using, and that the RSS has itself publicized "Rook's" real name, I don't see how the preference for anonymity has any standing. I'm reverting the name info but I'll leave the "mission statement" this time. Eugeneacurry (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is some helpful information from the Society of Professional Journalists on the ethics that should be used in writing. This is not Wikipolicy, nor is it enforceable in any way, but it does provide the basic dos and don'ts that are accepted by media outlets worldwide, from newspapers to paper encyclopedias. Much of it is a condensed version of wikipolicy, and it has often provided me with some very good, plain old common-sense arguments. Hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: In media sections in city articles

Hmm. This is an interesting discussion. I agree that it would be a good idea to broaden exposure of this issue, probably at WT:WikiProject Cities. My search of that WikiProject's talk archives didn't really turn up anything, nor did my search of WikiProject New Jersey's talk archives – although to be fair it's possible I missed something. One interesting discussion I did find was at WP:Featured article candidates/San Francisco, California from back in 2006, where there was a dispute over the inclusion of a paragraph similar to your section, documenting "depictions of the city in media, books, etc." The issue was how to include such information without having an "in popular culture" section that would invited a deluge of pop-culture references and trivia. While it certainly is possible to include the text you support in the Union City, New Jersey article, I think it might be better if you integrated the notable "in media" parts into the rest of the article to avoid a trivia section that could trigger the aforementioned deluge. For example, the editors of San Francisco, California integrated the information into the "Economy" section of that article.

If you want broader consensus on this, I think WT:WikiProject Cities is the place to go – but if you just want to deal with this as it regards to the Union City article, I would be happy to help out with the dispute on the article's talk page. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I still favor WT:WikiProject Cities, but WT:NJ would be just fine with me too. It sounds like you'd prefer NJ, in which case by all means start the discussion there. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

All right then. I started the thread there. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent comment (RSN: Quackwatch)

That was an excellent comment you made here. Thanks. We need more clear thinkers here.-- Brangifer (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI

(see the edit summary) –xeno 04:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Martin Ssempa

Hey stop threatening me. And why on earth are you putting comments on my personal discussion page rather than on the article talk page? I am happy to have a reasoned and civil discussion but I will not tolerate threats. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was being a real idiot over this. I was unintentionally rude to you and was being rather pig-headed. I hope you'll accept my apology. You were of course right to argue the approach you did - it was much more fair-minded than mine. regards. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion at Talk: Union City, New Jersey

Just to avoid any appearance of impropriety, I wanted to alert you to this brief exchange re Talk:Union City, New Jersey#Views_from_easternmost_streets_of_UC. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of "’Til Death Do Us Part"

I have nominated "’Til Death Do Us Part" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Jon Dalton

"... Bonaduce kissing Bonaduce on the lips ..."? I'm not sure how to fix this, but it seems odd? Plastikspork _―Œ 03:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Nightscream! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 19 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Diane Carey - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Kathy Oltion - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Todd Allen Gates - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. J. K. Woodward - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Day NYC

You are invited to celebrate Misplaced Pages Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Misplaced Pages Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Misplaced Pages Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul Levitz, well-known (former) fan

In light of your relatively-recent reversion of my reinstation of an image from The Amazing World of DC showing Paul Levitz (in caricature), I was challenged/asked to provide a rationale for reinstating the image, and have attempted to do so there.

As a (slightly-)briefer set of points, though, in direct response to your edit summary ("Revert. Modern free main image makes use of high-res copyright image under Fair Use dubious; Caricature not the best image to show what he looked like; "Prominent" creator doesn't have article; etc."): I disagree that Fair Use is dubious - AWODC has been out of print and not commercially exploited for more than thirty years, the use of a small subsection of a single page to illustrate Mr Levitz does not conflict with NFCC policy point #2, while the other particularly relevant points (1, 3, 4 and 8) are fulfilled. The caricature (rather than a contemporary photograph) serves a multi-purpose, by demonstrating not just what Levitz looked like, but what he was - as a prominent fanzine publisher - publishing, as well as part of the content of one of the issues of Amazing World of DC. Also, Levitz is the "prominent fan, fanzine publisher, contributor and subsequent professional" I referred to, not Mr Manak.

Fanzines are an oft-overlooked, vital part of comics history, and especially important as sources and references to the people behind them - as Levitz was. His publishing The Comic Reader played an important part in his being hired by DC, and his association with their in-house fanzine AWODC, from which this caricature is taken. It is therefore important as an artifact, as well as specifically illustrating an important individual - then-future Publisher - at his transition from fan to professional. It serves both to illustrate his days (and the now-brief section about his days) as a fan, and to juxtapose with the main image of him "now" - thereby showing the man at the start and arguably-pinnacle of his career. ntnon (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :o) You wrote: "The fact that it was made at the same time as that turning point does not mean that therefore, ipso facto, it shows that turning point. Nor does that fact that it appeared in AWODC... Simply put, a prominent point in his life is not illustrated by any ol' image simply because it was created at the same time."

True, to a point, but the image is one of several from AWoDC illustrating the people-behind-the-fanzine - so it does show that turning point, since it is a caricature produced to illustrate the man recently put to work at DC. It isn't just a drawing produced around the same time, it was produced deliberately to illustrate for DC's fans the faces behind the fanzine. Indeed, the new faces, many of whom had recently 'graduated' from amateur fanzines to the new pro-zines.

"The fact that it is a fanzine-created and fanzine-published caricature of a BLP subject that was himself prominent fan, fanzine publisher, contributor and subsequent professional doesn't justify fair use. A photograph showing him in the fanzine or DC offices would do this. Hell, even a caricature that had some background or setting in the fanzine office might do this. But a caricature of the "floating head", or "lollipop" variety does not."

I understand that a photograph would be better - and I'm seeking one - and I agree that a contextualised caricature might be better, but I fail to see why is automatically better. Would it be more acceptable as an illustration of his career turning point if I left the text in describing him? To contextualise the image?

"It also does not meet the image use policy, as that policy requires non-free images to be no larger than 300 pixels in height or width, whereas that image is 591 x 692px." That can be easily fixed - but is there any point, though..?!

I'll look for a photograph, but I still think that the triple-tie - fanzine-produced/published; AWoDC; Levitz - makes this as good an image of this vital point in his career as is likely to be found (barring a behind-the-scenes at DC's AWoDC photograph): even a contemporary photo would not necessarily illustrate as well his fanzine days. ntnon (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"But there is nothing in that illustration that shows any of that to the reader. No one looking at that image will see, "Oh, it's of a guy at a turning point who's recent been put in charge of..." It just shows a caricature. Nothing more."

Well, I suppose that that's in the eye of the beholder. You could (somewhat torturously) make essentially the same argument for any image - the context will be given not just by the image, but by the caption and the surrounding text. Here, the caption would note the specifics: that it is a caricature of Levitz, by Dave Manak for AWoDC. The text would add the context: that Levitz, prominent early fan and fanzine editor/publisher, was hired by DC and tasked (with others) with producing DC's first (and only) pro-zine, The Amazing World of DC Comics. Anyone then reading the article will see all of this, and recognise the importance of Levitz to fandom; of fandom to Levitz; of AWoDC, etc. And it should be illustrated with... <something>. Something from a fanzine. Something related to Levitz. Perhaps a Comics Reader or an et cetera. Perhaps a photo of young Paul Levitz. Perhaps a caricature of Levitz, as published in AWoDC. (Indeed, a cover of AWoDC would presumably be seen to be a reasonable illustration of this period in Levitz's career - but that would be one step removed from also illustrating pointedly his involvement, which a caricature of him adequately does.)

"A photograph is a more realistic representation of something with less room for subjectivity. A caricature, by its very nature is not, and text will not change the fact that the caricature does not describe what you insist it does."

You were suggesting that the caricature might not be deliberately representing Levitz-the-fan-turned-Levitz-the-pro. I merely note that, in the context of its original published page, it palpably does. It's a page of caricatures of the people behind AWoDC. Naturally a page of photos would have better captured the people, and presumably you would argue that a photo-portrait of Levitz from that context would be better suited here. I would not entirely disagree with that line of reasoning (favouring a photo over a caricature), but then I would also still maintain that this caricature adds an extra level its subject - it was produced deliberately for the reason of illustrating (by a then-nearly unknown artist) the people behind the fanzine, for the fanzine.

"You may have personal knowledge of that background behind that image, but that doesn't mean that this is self-explanatorily illustrated by that image to someone looking at it."

Not at all, and the packed-in meanings can be unpacked by anyone interested - with the description and surrounding text. It's clear that Manak produced the caricature (one among many) of Levitz as he was involved in AWoDC. That Manak produced it for AWoDC. That AWoDC was DCs in-house pro-zine. That Levitz was included in the team because of his history with fanzines. etc.

"Using your reasoning, I should upload one of the caricatures I made of Sam Viviano when I studied under him in art school, because it illustrates that important point in his life when he was teaching at the School of Visual Arts, which is mentioned in his article, but lacks an image. But in truth, this would not be justified, and would come across as me trying to shoehorning an image into an article."

You perhaps extrapolate too far....! (And Mr Viviano's page already includes a SELF-portrait, presumably from the period you describe, which is preferable to an outside caricature.) If there were no caricature - and by parts of your logic, the self-portrait/caricature on the page now is superfluous, since there is a recent photo! - and you had produced one of Mr Viviano for publication in MAD, say, for an issue in which all their artists were caricatured, then absosolutely it could be included. I am not Manak (so there's no attempt to shoehorn in an image for reasons of personal glorification). Manak produced the caricature of a relevant moment in the life of the relevant person, for a relevant purpose, for publication in a relevant publication.

Indeed since Viviano's page - your example - currently has both a photo and self-portrait caricature, I'd be tempted to use it to support my argument(s) for the re-inclusion of Manak's Levitz..! Which image would serve a far greater purpose than the one on Viviano's page currently does, where it is superfluous, undated and non-contextualised - none of which labels (I argue) apply to Manak's 1976 drawing of Levitz for AWoDC. ntnon (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"The mere fact that all images might need a caption ignores the fact that a photo like the hypothetical one I described, at least suggests its nature without a caption, whereas that caricature does not."

Sure it does. The context tells everything necessary - it's noticably a younger Levitz, noticably a drawing, and placed in the section where young Levitz joins DC from fanzines to work on AWoDC. It's obviously either an image from 'a' fanzine, AWoDC or both. It's obviously young Levitz from that point. Just as a photograph of Levitz working on something would suggest immediately that he is at DC, it would not necessarily tell (except through its placement) whether it was an early or later picture; if he were in the role of working on a fanzine, working as a writer, working as an editor, or overseeing as VP or President. That's why you have a caption explaining that - because the picture suggests, and the caption clarifies. Both hypothetical photo and caricature suggest instantly what they are and why, based on placement.

"The fact remains that that caricature does not clearly convey any of the information you insist it does to someone who doesn't already have that knowledge..."

But they are getting that information/knowledge from the very article they are reading! You read a page to learn, and then glance at the illustrative image to reinforce what you have read: "Oh, he worked on fanzines first, and worked on one at DC. Huh. Here's a picture of him then that was published in the fanzine. Interesting."

"...you seem to be hell-bent on shoehorning it in there."

Not in the slightest. I would like more illustrations in all articles, as studies show that they reinforce the impact and learning. Engaging both sides of the brain, and all that. That's why comics were tapped by the army and other organisations to impart information. Illustrations assist reading, break up the page and are generally A Good Thing. Levitz-as-fan was not illustrated; AWoDC was not illustrated - I had access to an image that provided a "solution" to both points, and it worked well for over a year...

I'm happy for you to open up whatever sort of wider discussion you feel necessary, if you feel it necessary. There's no stone cold dismissal of your points, merely disagreement. There's no shoehorning, merely attempts to improve. You seem convinced that a mere picture cannot convey a mass of information, even when it will necessarily have both context (placement, source) and description (subject, artist, source) to help impart the information it possesses inherently. (Also, just to re-mention an earlier point, you mentioned Sam Viviano - admittedly in a separate context - to support your argument, and that page contains a non-contextualised image almost identical in appearance, but NOT in context NOR scope NOR need. Would Mr Manak's permission to use his caricature of Levitz - as that is the only justification for its inclusion on the Viviano image's page - legitimise its use?) ntnon (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Your e-mail

Hi. Awhile back you had sent me an e-mail, at a time when I was travelling and wasn't able to look then into the issue you raised. I'm back active now, but don't know if the issue has been resolved. If you still need me to look into it, please let me know and I will do so this week. You can respond either here or by e-mail. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing problem with The Real World: D.C.

Hello Nightscream. I was trying to update the Episodes section by adding an Episode 4 title ("D.C. On The DL") to this section, but just when my edit was about to occur, my internet server briefly crashed, and now, FOR SOME WEIRD REASON, the episode summaries show up in the External Links section instead of the Episodes section. When you click on "edit this page", it looks like everything is in the correct place, except for the aforementioned problem. Hopefully, this unusual problem can soon be fixed. Thank you. DPH1110 (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)DPH1110

Photo requests?

I just saw your photo of the Mother Seton School when exploring the AutoUpdating Commons:Special:NewFiles feature at the toolserver. Do you take many pictures of historic buildings? If so, would you be willing to help contribute pictures for the New Jersey lists of sites on the National Register of Historic Places? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Family Guy

Hi Nightscream, I've recently replied to a section edited by you here and would appreciate your opinion. Bertcocaine (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Kristian Ayre, actor

Appreciate your help in tidying things up a bit for Kristian Ayre. Two points though - I deliberately revised the sub-heading "Alien Adbuction Controversy" to include that AA was a TV show because otherwise it might imply that Mr Ayre had claimed abduction! Which might be defamatory... so if you could revise that back, I think it would help. Similarly, although you probably correctly shifted "programme" to "program," you should not have changed it within quotations, since that is how it was written in the book. Equally, as the article is about a Canadian rather than an American, I wonder if it should have changed at all...? Presumably, since it is a US programme, but still. ntnon (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that "no one will know that AA is a TV program," I'm stating plainly that it is confusing on a casual view of the page. Go to Kristian Ayre, and you will see the infobox, the brief summary and the contents bar. Within the contents bar, italicised and emboldened text is not shown in italics. So the sections read "1 Early life/2 Career/3 Alien Abduction controversy/4 Article deletion/5 Partial filmography..." Which sections are 'obviously' about his early life, his career, the deletion of (an? his?) article, an excerpted filmography, and - ostensibly - controversy over an alien abduction. Not controversy over "Alien Abduction (TV show)," because there's no context. (Unlike, say, the context provided by accompanying text next to and under a caricature, or the context provided when you read the section.)

The section does feature italics implying it is a show/film, but the 'main article' link doesn't make it clear what the article is about, even if it (should) become immediately clear when anyone actually reads the section... as, since you bring it up, it should be abundantly clear to anyone reading a section on Levitz's role with fanzines that the illustration, etc., etc.

Just a passing thought, based - ironically - on the criticisms you voiced about Paul Levitz, since you appeared to be arguing that the implications of context weren't enough... ntnon (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and about all the quotes: I agree. Problem is, that there are cabals and groups that insist on direct quotes, because paraphrasing can introduce bias or confusion or misunderstanding, while direct quotes are direct quotes and say what they say. Rather than any of us writing roughly what was previously written, and sourcing our words to someone else. So I have tended at times to put in as many direct quotes as possible to placate those critical voices... ntnon (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

One solution is to paraphrase (especially when a long quote can be condensed down) and then include the quote in the footnote - quite a few of the citation templates include a "quote" field which I've found very useful. (Emperor (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

The Real World

Union City, NJ seal

I replied to Commons:COM:HD#Union City, NJ seal (permanent link). --Teratornis (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Suicides

thanks for the notice. My only thought is that the article should not assume suicides just because somebody for example may have overdose. An overdose is not necessarily a suicide. I mentioned something about that before last year. But that's all I can come up with. It's good article. Koplimek (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh brother...

I'll review the discussion, as I'm interested... but I think you should be aware that what you are doing is called canvassing, and is frowned upon here. I'm not really fussed, as I've never been comfortable with the policy, but it is specified at WP:CANVASS. I suspect that you don't know about this, so take this as a friendly caution - if it happens again it could get you blocked :( Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 02:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)