User talk:Tenebrae

This user has been banned indefinitely from editing the English Wikipedia by the community. Administrators, please review the banning policy before unblocking. (block log · contributions · discussion at AN)

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

Please note: Postings that end with unsigned comments will be deleted. Wikipedia policy is to sign all comments.

IP-only editors, please use User talk:Tenebrae/Nonconfirmed.

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FantasticFour49.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FF51.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Avengers52.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TalesToAstonish56.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:StrangeTales168-NickFury.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BlackWidow2005No1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tenebrae,

I don't believe we've communicated in quite awhile, so I just wanted to give you a quick "hello". I hope you are doing well during this trying time. My Wikipedia editing has trailed off from its former volume but I'm trying to get back into it now that I have plenty of time.

Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And a hello back at you, Mtminchi08! I understand how you feel about Wikipedia editing -- we contribute so much time and work for free, and on occasion there are difficult people that make us wonder why we continue. But then there are wonderful colleagues like you who put the importance of information ahead of other concerns, and that collegiality helps make this all worthwhile. I hope you're staying safe and healthy during this crazy pandemic. I appreciate your hard work very much. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Tenebrae, When you have the chance, could you give my recent edits to Roy Thomas, Rich Buckler, and Mike Sekowsky a quick review? I believe I'm on solid ground but it's good to have another person's imput. Mtminchi08 (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thnx Yoshmin (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you started the Facebook page for Dorothy Woolfolk? My first job as a nurse was at a nursing home in Newport News Virginia. I had the privilege and honor is caring for Dorothy in her final years. I wanted to thank you if you were the one who posted the Facebook page. She would be tickled pink. Kittylynnlpn (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kittylynnlpn: Hi. I'm afraid that wasn't me. But I did work a lot on her Wikipedia page.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HouseOfMystery160.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Strong work finding reliable sources for Linda Fiorentino's marriage. Ifnord (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to ask you the following question: is there any way for PA herself, her lawyer(s) or representatives to produce any document which can be used on Wikipedia as evidence that No relationship was formalized with RP? (since, No document exists to prove that such has taken place. All court databases in the US, CA and elsewhere are Empty since there was never a relationship between the parties. But several websites, including Wikipedia do not take this for an answer and want to continue to publish that there was a relationship, "because journalists say so"). Could someone be listed here as a criminal, in spite of No Court in the world having such a record, "because journalists say so" ? Meungvax (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Meungvax: Offhand, I don't know of any method of utilizing personal original research with primary documents. My best suggestion would be to try the OTRS noticeboard, at this bluelink, which handles inquiries from the public.

I would separately note that marriage certificate does not need to be filed in order for a marriage to be valid. The obtaining of a marriage certificate certainly is required, normally. But the filing of certificates can be delayed for any number of reasons; birth certificates and death certificate occasionally are not filed immediately or for some time, but that doesn't mean the birth or the death did not take place.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No Certificate was Requested (Neither by PA, nor by RP), Nor Obtained, Nor Exists. PA and RP were seen together and some quotes have been misplaced--which is fine to publicize--but no Marriage has ever taken place. Period. Media refuse to refer to Court Records and keep quoting one another to claim that such an act took place. How come you yourself are not satisfied with Court Records to prove that No Such Act has been Filed, Requested or Issued by and to either party? Meungvax (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you're trying to convince, since everything you are saying is your own personal research, which as I've said is disallowed by Wikipedia policy. Additionally, it may be that this documentation does exist and you simply can't find it — not every government document gets digitized and some may exist only in physical form at some clerk's office. But that's neither here nor there. The best way I can think of for you to address this is to try the OTRS noticeboard. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The publicist has e-mailed oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org and explained that he wants to take this statement back (it was a statement made without legal basis). Is that enough for you? Meungvax (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of me personally. I have no power in this, other than to say WP:BLP claims based on original research involving purported primary documents that are at odds with reliable journalistic sources are disallowed.

You say Pamela Anderson's publicist has contacted oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org. First, I'm not sure that is the correct venue, as it is for "Removal of private or defamatory information", as opposed to info-en-q@wikimedia.org, which is for "Issues with an article about you or your organization."

Second, that's only the first step. Wikimedia needs to respond, and as it says at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard, "Please be aware that there is sometimes a backlog in processing tickets sent to the permissions-en queue. This backlog is currently 27 days."

What I will do to try to help move this along is post a link at the noticeboard to this comment thread, and ask there for additional guidance. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae, thanks a lot for your cooperation here. The publicist in question is concerned that his Name will appear on Wikipedia.org if the edit is approved. Do you have some idea of what this edit will look like? Would Wikipedia.org, for example, publish his Name and mention that a Retraction took place? Thanks for helping us here if you have this information Meungvax (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help — Wikipedia only works when we all work together. Here is the latest post at the Wikipedia:OTRS Noticeboard answering my questions there: "If anything is suppressable, then it will be removed (if not already removed) and hidden in the page history. The requestor should receive an email response indicating whether any action has been taken." I'm afraid that's all I know.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some recent editing going on there, such as this. I remember you editing text regarding her children. Have some sources gotten it wrong?

No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Flyer. Thanks for the head's up. Indeed, it looks like the article had said at some earlier point, citing two different RS sources, that either Lovell or Maby is the father. Dash has never shown much regard for the press, so I wouldn't be surprised if she said different things to different outlets — she won't even confirm her birthdate. I adjusted that passage, and also added a whole mess of archive links while I was there. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into and handling this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed you rolled back edits i made on my great grandfathers wiki (infact all of them), and i would like to ask for said edits to be re-instated, i hope you will respond back to me, thanks - Q

(family of martin nodell) Green Lantern's lantern (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also have proof that he is my great grandfather, i have images of awards that we still have that he won. Green Lantern's lantern (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@Green Lantern's lantern: Please read WP:COI. It appears you have a strong conflict of interest regarding the article in question. Any information, particularly that regarding a person, needs to be sourced by reliable source. See WP:RS and WP:BLP. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could use some c/es on this if necessary. Also how ready do you think it is? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article popped up on my watchlist again. There is some conflicting birth date thing going on with this topic, which is why I watchlisted it. See the edit history.

Thoughts? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Frozen: Hi, Flyer. I took a look, and it seems like the major newspapers and the BFI agree on the 1921 birthdate. I did do some copy-editing and added archive links while I was there.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:GallupIndependent-01-31-2020.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this because the NY Post article from Page Six had a DIRECT quote from Patrick Duffy, it was not gossip. Also, if you start deleting items like this, you need to check out all other "celebrity" pages where the personal information includes who someone is dating and don't even include an attribution. For example, "Katie Holmes" has a notation who she is dating and without any attribution or reference at all.

If you're going to hold my edits to your standard, you should hold everyone else to the same standards.Aspenguy2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspenguy2: We do hold everyone to this standard. It's called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, meaning that we bring articles up to proper standards, and not down to articles that don't follow policies and guidelines. No one editor can police "everyone else" — we each do our part on however many articles we can handle.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:GallupIndependent-01-31-2020.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:GallupIndependent-01-31-2020.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Tenebrae. Please be mindful of citing Ancestry.com, as WP:RSP renders the source generally unreliable. Furthermore, its use violates WP:BLPPRIVACY. Thanks. KyleJoan^talk 04:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KyleJoan: You're absolutely correct, which is why I virtually never use it. I think my use in this case follows the guideline at WP:RSP re: Ancestry: "Some of these sources may be usable under WP:BLPPRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred." The source used was a birth record, so no WP:USERGENERATED involved, and since there is no secondary source that I could find, a WP:BLPPRIMARY is allowed, ("...secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred," but not mandated.) WP:BLPPRIVACY is primarily about notable but private figures; Amanda Kloots is a highly public figure.

In this particular case only — and we agree 100% that other sources when available are preferable — what do you think?--Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The New York Times gave an age as of September 2020, and combined with the birthdate month and day that both the subject and her husband have given, the above point is moot.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tenebrae, how's it going? You're not still mad at me over the arguments we had a few years ago over Superman? Looking back, I see I was somewhat at fault. I let my anger get the best of me. I was not used to editing an article where other editors took so much issue with my approach. Before, I had worked on more niche topics where I could do more or less what I wanted because nobody else was interested. But so many people are sensitive over Superman. Kurzon (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurzon: Not angry. No worries there. I appreciate your writing to say these things, and, of course, apology gratefully accepted. Right now I just don't have the energy to work on the Superman article, or even look at it. I can only hope that some of the points I made about editing have been taken to heart, and that no one's made contentious, POV or fringe-view edits to the article. I may get back to it someday. I wish you smooth and productive editing. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Honestly I'm not even sure what I was angry with you about. The article as it is is fine, and if I took broader issues with your style of editing, that was neither here nor there. It's important for me to revisit this because I just know this will happen to me again. Kurzon (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to cite her Instagram post when the 'Playbill' ref already verifies her son's name and date of birth? Per WP:RSPRIMARY: Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Aside from that, I guess I'm a little confused because you removed the 'People', Entertainment Tonight, and 'Today' refs per WP:OVERCITING but also thought that it would be appropriate to add another source–a primary one at that–that says the exact same thing an existing (secondary) source already says. KyleJoan^talk 02:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KyleJoan: Hi, and thank you for coming here to discuss. WP:PRIMARY may be used in support of WP:SECONDARY, and in this case, the fact the parents themselves announced the birth specifics to media is significant, in that it documents it wasn't simply some magazine reporting something based on anonymous "sources." Unconfirmed claims by "sources" are rumors. The Instagram post provides irrefutable documentation.

I removed the other secondary sources since they simply repeat what the initial cite said, and supplied no additional documentation. Does this make sense? Genuinely and respectfully asking. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Playbill' article already includes Kloots' Instagram post as well as Kloots and Cordero announcing the birth themselves, so shouldn't the Instagram post also be removed since it simply [repeats] what the initial cite said, and supplied no additional documentation per RSPRIMARY? KyleJoan^talk 03:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a basic journalistic and biographical-research tenet that you go to the original source, since an outlet repeating what someone else said (in this case, in an Instagram post) may have mis-transcribed or misinterpreted something. We don't have to take Playbill's word for it — we can see the source for ourselves. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not what RSPRIMARY says. Maybe you should propose a change to the guideline, then. KyleJoan^talk 03:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what WP:PRIMARY says: "...primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia.... Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. (emphasis added).

The use of this Instagram post, which requires no interpretation but simply presents "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" (in this case via the supplied link) satisfies these conditions.

And it seems non-contentious to want to WP:VERIFY a WP:BLP as thoroughly as possible. Usually editors argue for more documentation, not less.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say that Instagram may not be used? I only said that its use in this situation is superfluous since a secondary source already verifies what the Instagram ref is supposed to verify. PRIMARY and RSPRIMARY also do not contradict one another; the former says that primary sources may be used, while the latter says that secondary sources are preferred, so the notion that PRIMARY applies but RSPRIMARY does not confuses me. Aside from that, your points also undermine the basis of your removal of the three other sources that help VERIFY a BLP as thoroughly as possible, so forgive me for my continued confusion. KyleJoan^talk 03:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other secondary sources provided nothing the first source didn't say. They're redundant. Whereas the primary Instagram adds a firsthand, straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. The secondary source does not, by the very nature of it being secondary. And in the case of a BLP, especially one involving a child, having the primary source bolster the second source seems, to me, both prudent and responsible. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We now have a consensus not to include a primary source when a secondary source is already present per this discussion. Please feel free to state any contrasting views there. KyleJoan^talk 14:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments in less than one day does not constitute consensus to change the content guideline WP:PRIMARY. This combined with your WP:FORUMSHOPPING when the RfC at Talk:Amanda Kloots is going against you is reaching the point of disruptive editing. Keep this up, and we're going to let admins figure it out at an WP:ANI. And I don't think they're going to change the content guideline on the basis of two comments to an out-of-context question.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? No one is arguing against PRIMARY. FORUMSHOPPING is also irrelevant. The two RfCs discuss proposed content, while the discussion here has to do with the necessity of the usage of primary sources. Please file the ANI report. I'd love to take this there. KyleJoan^talk 15:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. In the meantime, the status quo stays until an actual consensus to change the guideline emerges, and until the RfC reaches closure. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't wait for the ANI report! May I ask when you are planning to file it? KyleJoan^talk 15:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today. Given the work involved, I don't think it's reasonable to demand I do it right this minute. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 16:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And as the closing admin wrote: "No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria." This was a blatantly spurious and malicious false filing by User:KyleJoan.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you should open an RfC to determine whether we need to cite her Instagram post about her son's birth. How does that sound? KyleJoan^talk 17:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should wait for the ANI against you to end before making any suggestions of what other editors should do or what WIkipedia best-practices are. And what kind of editor files a false, harassing sockpuppet claim that admins immediately shot down, in addition to a false 3RR claim that admins immediately shot down. What kind of person are you?--Tenebrae (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll wait until the ANI ends to make a suggestion to open another RfC. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 18:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that BLP disputed information should not be reinserted[1] per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS until the consensus to include is met; especially when there is a pending RFC to determine that consensus. The pending RFC is not a reason to maintain status quo. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Morbidthoughts: I'm afraid you're misinterpreting Wikipedia protocol. The status quo remains until the RfC is closed and a decision is made. One cannot unilaterally say, "Well, I'm right no matter what the RfC says, and I don't like the status quo so I'm changing it." No. The status quo remains. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not for disputed BLP violations where there is an issue of WP:V. Instagram is unacceptable for claims about third parties. That includes her kid. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Morbidthoughts: With all due respect, if you had looked at the two footnotes, you would have seen a secondary source. The primary was there additionally to bolster the primary source, as is perfectly allowed under WP:PRIMARY. And there's no BLP dispute — everyone agrees the facts are accurate. And BLPPRIVACY doesn't apply since the parent themselves announced it to the media, where it was picked up by print, Web and broadcast outlets going out to countless millions of people. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. The second footnote republished the instagram post verbatim. BLPPRIVACY or BLPNAME doesn't just apply to the parent; it applies to the kid. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Morbidthoughts: That's not for you to decide. The parents have all rights over their child, and they made the information extremely public. There is no blanket prohibition whatsoever of including children's names, though you are essentially, and falsely, claiming there is.

Naw, parents do not have absolute rights over everything about their children. I'm not claiming a blanket prohibition, BUT BLPNAME does state: "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value" and " The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject" To me, that's a no in this case. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why on Earth did your same edit remove Amanda Kloots' publicly credited stage name used on two Broadway shows: "and was billed as Amanda-Kloots Larsen for the Broadway productions Follies (2011-2012) and Bullets Over Broadway (2014).^[1]

That wasn't intentional but if ibdb is a user contributed database like IMDB WP:RS/imdb, that's not a reliable source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Morbidthoughts: It's actually the official, authoritative database of The Broadway League, the association to which Broadway producers belong and which administers the Tony Awards. I hope it's not untoward of me to suggest, but you might not always read or check things as carefully as one might — The Broadway League, with wikilink, was included in the footnote. And now the article is locked. I would like to ask you to restore that content when possible, if I may. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it out.[2][3] Naw. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standard legal boilerplate. IBDB is a professionally staffed database by the organization in charge of what it covers. It more than fulfills the definition of WP:RS. And linking to a single, three-year-old talk-page discussion that reached no conclusion means nothing.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standard legal boilerplate that disclaims any accuracy of their content. I don't see that with newspapers, magazines, academic journals or even the unreliable IMDB, an Amazon company. Naw. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Morbidthoughts: Oh, for goodness' sakes. The Television Academy, which administers the Emmy Awards, says the same thing under "Disclaimer of Warranties" here ("The company, its advertisers and licensors make no representations or warranties about this site, the suitability of the information contained on or received through use of this site.") According to you, that means The Television Academy isn't an RS source for its own Emmys!--Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Academy website is reliable as a primary site for who they give their awards to, but not necessarily for all that other stuff on its website like bios. How does that apply to IBDB? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Morbidthoughts:Because The Broadway League administers the Tony Awards, just like The Television Academy administers the Emmy Awards and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences administers the Academy Awards. To do that, The Broadway League keeps extremely detailed records of everyone who works on a show, the exact dates and theaters that the shows run, and all the Equity union details like performers' name. That and marketing Broadway is literally its purpose. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a dispute about Tony Awards listing? The comparative primary sourcing for cast listing of a show would be the actual show producers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The actual show producers and Actors Equity supply the credits to The Broadway League, which is the official clearinghouse for all Broadway credits. Anyone who has ever written about theater professionally or even semiprofessionally knows this. I don't understand how anyone can argue that the Broadway League's credits — the ones they use to determine which lighting person and which producer and which costume designer is the official person who gets the Tony Award -- is not authoritative and RS.

Things like this make me feel that only journalists, professional researchers and academics should edit Wikipedia. An insurance salesperson or plumber or surgeon who doesn't know what The Broadway League is should not be writing about theater.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Morbidthoughts:Likewise, according to you, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is not RS for its database of Academy Awards! https://www.oscars.org/legal/terms-of-use: "Disclaimer. The accuracy, completeness, adequacy, availability or currency of the Site or its content is not warranted or guaranteed. Your use of information on the Site is at your own risk. Academy does not represent or warrant that the Site will be error-free, free of viruses or free of other harmful components. The Site is provided on an 'as is' basis. Academy expressly disclaims all warranties, including the warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement." For goodness' sakes.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before you know it KyleJoan will accuse you and I of being sockpuppets, so please be sure to use fabric softener when you wash them. It's this very issue and actions why I don't edit very much and didn't even have to edit here but respond to a rfc for all this garbage. I like wikipedia but it needs better controls for people who are so controlling and desperate for things to be their way. I could go on and on, but just wanted to say thanks because you know the pain. I'll be very curious to see if that ip is KyleJoan although I guess they won't tell us which is fine. It's just mighty suspicious for a week old user to do as they did versus KyleJoan's accusation that two editors each over a decade were the same person. SailedtheSeas (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tenebrae, I'm Rebestalic and I'd like to apologise for my rather rushed edit on Ariana Grande's article

But also a congratulations for coming SO FAST!!!

Rebestalic^{[leave a message....]} 00:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rebestalic: It's quite alright. Glad to help. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Tenebrae, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Tenebrae, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Starzoner (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! Starzoner (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas Tenebrae
	Hi Tenebrae, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia,    –Davey2010Talk 20:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, well that was a mess! Not quite as much of a mess as the one that I got dragged into almost a year ago, but I think yours was uglier. My advice is to avoid the people as much as possible who give you that much stress and make life on Wikipedia that much more difficult for you to enjoy working on. It sure has helped me over the past year! BOZ (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, BOZ, old colleague. My fervent wish, indeed, is never to run across such venal, mean-spirited and irresponsible editors again. I'm sorry to hear you went through anything like this yourself — like me, you've put years into making this encyclopedia better.

In this instance, the issue is the vagueness and lack of objective criteria at WP:BLPNAME. I need to regain my strength before beginning a discussion there, but it makes no sense to me to whitewash out the names of the children of high-profile celebrities like Beyonce and Jay-Z, Kanye West and Kim Kardashian, and even Amanda Kloots and Nick Cordero, who have publicists release their names to the media and who pose with them on magazine covers, etc. Children of a subject are a biographical staple — just like the names of their parents or where they attended school. At some point soon I'll initiate a discussion there so we can establish criteria to help prevent weeks-long messes like this, which spun off multiple 3RRs and SPIs and at least one ANI. That's a huge waste of volunteers' time and energy, and creates a horrible work environment.

My very best to you in what I hope will be a better new year! With regards and respect, --Tenebrae (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tenebrae,

Just stopping by to wish you a Merry Christmas and a *much better* 2021.

Mtminchi08 (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... and to you as well. I've been remiss about holiday greetings ... it's just been that kind of year. Happy New Year, buddy!--Tenebrae (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About that working title of Mission: Impossible 7 – there is a strong Hollywood source which proves the movie's actual working title is "Libra." And one film trade web service may actually suggest that it could be in fact the title for both parts 7 and 8. So they might be ultimately titled in a way of, say, the last Harry Potter two-parter (Part 1, and Part 2) – eg. Libra Part 1, and Libra Part 2. But anyway, I wanted to add the word "Libra" to the header of the article a couple of times, when the news came out, but someone consistently disproved it. Now that recently you had the point that even the "M:I 7" is actually a working title itself, we should put the Libra part next to it, as well, what do you think? — Kochas 18:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on the source. Could you link to it here? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the article already. Here you are. — Kochas 23:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Production Weekly is as RS as it gets!--Tenebrae (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Tenebrae: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. Starzoner (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

I wish you a prosperous 2021! Starzoner (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that as a professional journalist you have a set of practices that guide your work. For the most part, editors here rely on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines but don't have the benefit of journalism school or experience writing for publications with editorial oversight. There were concerns expressed about conflict of interest with regard to people that you have written about or met through your work as a journalist. I suspect that if you explained how your roles as journalist and Wikipedia editor overlap, those concerns would be lessened. That's why I posed those questions for you at ANI. I'm sorry you didn't get a chance to answer them. Mo Billings (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your consideration of what is, generally speaking, a valid concern. Conflict of interest has never been an issue in my 15 years on Wikipedia — where, unfortunately, those years have seen the occasional incident of obsessive editors attempting to "dig up dirt" on someone who articulately disagrees with them, and who throw any evidence-free allegation they can think up. The past couple of weeks have seen these same editors falsely accuse me of WP:3RR and sock-puppetry, both investigations of which were quickly quashed by admins who immediately saw right through them. My edits and my character have withstood similar scrutiny in past such attacks, and believe me, any actual COI would have been uncovered long, long ago. Thank you for being what sounds like a responsible editor, and I'm sorry I missed your post among those endless blocks of text. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to take sides in this, but I feel if you took the time to explain how you view your relationships with people you write about and how you deal with conflict of interest here on Wiki[edia, you might reduce some of the friction you seem to attract. Mo Billings (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it sounds like you're indeed taking a side, because, corny as you might think, I have the integrity and ethics that come from years in my profession, and I would never commit nor countenance conflict of interest. Period. And I'm growing concerned about your continuing to push on this — first, apparently, in an ANI that didn't involved COI allegations until the complainants realized their other allegations weren't sticking, and now on my talk page. I've tried to respond collegially. Now I must ask you to please drop this before it becomes harassment.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think people understand what you do as a journalist and therefore might have unwarranted concerns about your edits. It was just an observation that I had while watching that ANI thread growing and growing. I was just trying to help but it's clear that my suggestion has somehow insulted you. I am sorry. Mo Billings (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mo Billings: No, it's fine. I just feel you might not realize there's no way to "prove" anything without outing myself, which for professional reasons it's best I don't. If we could drop this now, please, I'd be obliged.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I have asked you to "prove" anything or to say anything that would require you to "out" yourself then you have misunderstood what I was saying but I understand that you don't want to talk about this any more. Fine with me. Mo Billings (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven’t been so active on Wiki lately. Though yes you are most welcome to do whatever you think fit for the Spider-Woman image. Happy to see you back on board. Hope everything in ANI is cleared up. Because I think you are a constructive contributor no doubt. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Neck Peninsula is in fact in the Town of North Hempstead, New York. Therefore the citations you added to Saddle Rock, New York aren't necessary. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if you previously attempted to cleanup the Criticism of Gina Carano. The can of worms has been reopened. I hope you can add your comments, if you aren't too exhausted by yet another sad little social media tempest-in-a-teapot. -- 109.78.195.140 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must thank you taking the time to add your comments on Gina Carano article, despite your clear exhaustion by this sort of thing. (I'm fairly sure I disagree with you on lots of trivial things but agree with your intent and respect your persistence). I hope your comments will help raise/maintain a serious level of discussion. Rest well. -- 109.76.203.103 (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was reviewing the conduct of World's Lamest Critic, came across this exchange. You may not know that about two years after their indefinite block on en.wiki, they earned themselves a global block.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: Thank you for letting me know! I've found it harder and harder to be on Wikipedia because of what seems like a growing number of highly opinionated people who are under-qualified to write about particular topics ... and unfortunately there are more of them than there are of responsible editors, so they have the advantage of numbers in talk-page discussions. This news makes me feel like perhaps there still is some balance to things. Much appreciated!--Tenebrae (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I share your concern. In WLC's case I think it was much worse than that. I think WLC was an intelligent and competent individual, who was fully capable of making a strongly positive contribution, who had however chosen to make just enough positive, policy compliant contributions that he look like a good faith contributor, when his real goal was disruption.

I think our obligation to assume good faith should not be expected to extend to individuals once they are indefinitely blocked for vandalism.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our Town St James appears to be one of those local publications that get delivered via bulk mail to residents in specific postal areas. One the cover it says "Keeping you up to date on SALES, HAPPENINGS & PEOPLE In Our Town - St. James". In my experience, these publications are largely just vehicles for advertising with a little bit of local content sandwiched between the ads. You have used this as a source in two articles (here and here). Do you really think that this is a reliable source? Mo Billings (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for having a dialog. Our Town St James is RS under Wikipedia guidelines in that it is a professionally edited and written publication, which additionally has a long publishing history. Local magazines and newspapers can be some of the best sources for information about local residents. Additionally, Glazer has stated, as Fast Company cites in Ilana Glazer article, that she was raised in St. James. Since Smithtown High School serves St. James, there is no reason to believe that a St. James-based publication, which also accurately names her parents, is not RS for her high school.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that it is plausible or even likely that Glazer went to the named school, but I disagree that the source is question should be considered a reliable source. I will start a discussion on WP:RSN. Mo Billings (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the discussion, in case you wish to comment. Mo Billings (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for fixing this, I neglected to check that the other source actually had the year when I removed the social media source. Mo Billings (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to. We all back each other up here! :)   --Tenebrae (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editors recent edits at Frank Lovece contained good-faith citation requests. In equally good faith I ask here, the only page on which I can comment, that these citations be added. They were requested, and I'd like to think these requests were sincere.

RE: the books in the first paragraph under "Early work" — in addition to the bibliography with ISBNs, there is also: Jacobs, Alexandra; Flamm, Matthew (April 24, 1998). "The inside scoop on the book world > Monster Mash". Entertainment Weekly.

RE: Removal of performing in NYC improv troupe Wingnuts in the early 2000s, here: "Wingnuts Improv-Comedy Troupe Flyer". Tom Soter, dir., Wingnuts. 2002 – via Scribd.; "Wingnuts Post-show Notes". Tom Soter, dir., Wingnuts. February 20, 2002 – via Scribd.

Under "Later career," here is a masthead for the Sound & Vision" website: "Masthead credits{ Editorial". Sound & Vision.

Here also are links to humor published in Entertainment weekly [4], [5], in Gist.com (which was syndicated to Yahoo!/MSN) [6], [7],[8], and in Newsday [9]. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]